FAilure to Implement LA's Community Plans

Get Informed and Involved: The Failure to implement LA's Community Plans

By

Ron Kaye

on November 9, 2010 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Editor's Note: The assault on planning rules that protect neighborhoods and require processes that give the public a voice is in his gear. The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday will vote on a proposed ordinance that will fundamentally change how Community Plans are updated. It would enable the city to effectively upzone and change zoning within Community Plan areas without a formal Community Plan update, to spot-zone individual sites with only adjustments and exceptions without requriing variances, potentially override existing Community Design Overlay Districts, Pedestrian Oriented Districts and Q conditions and undermine the new Baseline Hillside Ordinance, according to LA Neighbors United. This article by former city planner, Dick Platkin, now a planning consultant, helps explain the issue.

By Dick Platkin (rhplatkin@yahoo.com)

On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council will consider and may adopt a new Community Plan Implementation Ordinance (CPIO). This ordinance is enabling legislation which will then allow the city to implement a community plan through a zoning overlay ordinance for an entire community plan area.

But would such local ordinances actually implement a Community Plan? The answer is hardly at all, and the title of this new legislation vastly and misleadingly exaggerates its importance.

This is because the City's elected officials, with long-term and consistent support from the Department of City Planning, long ago abdicated their role in planning Los Angeles. For them planning has become an appendage to the city's Department of Building and Safety, not a rigorously prepared and maintained vision for governing Los Angeles.

As anyone who has taken the time to actually look at the city's General Plan elements, such as the General Plan Framework or at one of the city's 35 Community Plans quickly learns, these documents always address 100 percent of the land area in Los Angeles. This is why all plans contain page after page of thoughtful policies and programs addressing such public infrastructure as parks, and such public services as libraries and sanitation.

These portions of the General Plan and its implementing land use element, the Community Plans, such as the Hollywood Community Plan now being updated, address 80 percent of the land area of Los Angeles. They should therefore guide the bulk of City Hall's activities, the city's annual budget, including its Capital Improvement Program.

Furthermore, only 20 percent of the city's surface area is private lots, and only a small amount of the activity on these private lots is new construction regulated by Building and Safety and City Planning. Most of what goes on in private lots has nothing to do with new construction and is addressed by code enforcement or other cutting-edge programs to "green" existing buildings. Examples of the latter include environmental upgrades, such as cisterns, strategic tree planting, green roofs, double-paned windows, and home appliances.

Not only does the proposed CPIO fail to address any policies or programs for existing structures, but -- more importantly -- it totally fails to implement any of the policies and programs for the 80 percent of Los Angeles carefully addressed in Community Plans, but under the jurisdiction of the big city departments, in particular LADWP, Harbor, Airports, Public Works (Engineering, Street Services, Sanitation), Police, Fire, Transportation, Libraries, and Recreation and Parks.

In other words, the CPIO is almost totally irrelevant. This is because these city departments control most of the land area of the city, spend most of the General Fund and collected fees, build and maintain the city's entire infrastructure, and operate all of the city's municipal services (e.g., garbage collection, traffic control). Yet, they are totally absent from the misnamed Community Plan Implementation Ordinance.

The real heavy lifting in implementing a community plan comes through the city's budget, department work programs, and the Capital Improvement Program. Building permits, in particular discretionary actions to obtain building permits not otherwise allowed by city codes, are, in reality, a tiny part of Community Plan implementation.

Since City Planning long ago abdicated any role other than processing these discretionary actions, they have proposed an ordinance which has the hubris of claiming it is implementing the Community Plans, when, in fact, it is only a back door for circumventing discretionary actions for the small number of building permits which cannot be directly approved by the city Department of Building and Safety.

What Los Angeles needs is real implementation of its existing and future city plans, not misleading ordinances which claim to implement the General Plan and Community Plans, but which do nothing of the sort.

DCP sets meetings for Core Findings and Community Care Facilities

Please share with your distribution lists:

The Department of City Planning invites you to attend one of four upcoming
informational meetings about the proposed Core Findings and Community Care
Facilities Code Amendments. For more information about both of these
efforts including the staff report and draft ordinances, please see the
"What's New" section of the Planning Department's homepage: *
www.planning.lacity.org*


Meetings will be held on September 25th, and October 2nd, 6th and 9th at the
following times and locations:

SOUTH LA
September 25, 10 am - 2 pm
Betty Hill Senior Center
3570 S. Denker Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90018
(auditorium)

NORTHEAST LA
October 2, 10 am - 2 pm
El Sereno Recreation Center
4721 Klamath Street
Los Angeles, CA 90032
(community room)

WEST LA
October 6, 5-9 pm
Felicia Mahood Senior Center
11338 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90028
(auditorium)

VALLEY
October 9, 10 am - 2 pm
Marvin Braude Center
6262 Van Nuys Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 91401
(1st floor meeting room)

Important Upcoming Dates to Remember:
10/7: Last day for formal written comments to Commission Secretariat on Core
Findings & Community Care (Please note that comments are also taken at CPC
on these items both verbal and in writing)
10/14: CPC Meeting, Thursday, after 8:30am, City Hall, 200 N. Spring St.,
Room 1010, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Please see the attached flyer for more information about these information
sessions.

For questions, please contact Gabriela Juarez at
gabriela.juarez@lacity.org or
(213) 978-1337.


--
Gabriela Juarez
Department of City Planning
Code Studies Section
200 N Spring St, Room #763
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mailstop: 395
Ph: (213) 978-1337
Fax: (213) 978-1334

Comment Letter Re: Core Findings

September 14, 2010

To The City Planning Commission:

Re: CPC-2010-1572-CA

The first paragraph of the Staff report for this Ordinance states:

“Pursuant to Charter Section 558 and Section 12.32-A of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the Director of Planning has initiated development of six recommended zoning code amendments intended to streamline and simplify the Department's case processing function. The attached Appendix A is the first of these six proposed ordinances to be presented to the City Planning Commission.”

As such, the Director of Planning for the City of Los Angeles has initiated a project that proposes to be implemented in 6 segments, commencing with this first Ordinance. It is impossible for the public to evaluate this Ordinance because of the large unknown scope of the entire project. We disagree that this ordinance is simply changing words and will have no impact on discretionary actions. Changing a finding from “That there are special circumstances applicable to the project or project site which make the strict application of the specific plan regulation(s) impractical to “That the project will enhance the environment in the surrounding neighborhood or will perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial to the community, city or region” is not a small matter to those in the community. It is also hard to understand how eliminating the language in 11.5.7 C 2 (b) dealing with mitigation measures or monitoring helps the community. It may or may not be redundant of CEQA but it should not be omitted given the City’s poor record with mitigation measures as outlined in several City Controller Audits as well as the City’s non compliance with the Framework Element’s monitoring program and Annual Reports on Growth and Infrastructure.

Given that this “project” appears to be a major rewrite of the Administrative code, for whatever reason, the City should not do it in segments. It will be impossible for the public to determine if one finding complements or conflicts with another as the project unfolds. The City must do a through evaluation of the entire code and present one clear, ordinance in the form of a full Environmental Report that the public can evaluate and comment on.
Before it does that, the City must complete the required Annual Reports on Growth and Infrastructure, not compiled and distributed since 2000. The Reports are specific and essential mitigation cited by the City as part of the General Plan Framework. The Report was to inform the city on all environmental approvals. The Statement of Overriding Consideration stated:
Absent the report and its findings on actual versus expected growth, actual versus expected infrastructure improvements and availability of infrastructure, the city cannot provide a statement of consistency with the General Plan, and depending on the area, the Community Plan. Most of the Community Plans in the City rely on the Report. Model language (taken from the West L.A. Community Plan) appears as follows:
“Accordingly, the proposed Plan has three fundamental premises. First, is limiting residential densities in various neighborhoods to the prevailing density of development in these neighborhoods. Second, is the monitoring of population growth and infrastructure improvements through the City’s Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure with a report to the City Planning Commission every five years on the West Los Angeles Community following Plan adoption. Third, if this monitoring finds that population in the Plan area is occurring faster than projected; and, that infrastructure resource capacities are threatened, particularly critical ones such as water and sewerage; and, that there is not a clear commitment to at least begin the necessary improvements within twelve months; then building controls should be put into effect, for all or portions of the West Los Angeles Community, until land use designations for the Community Plan and corresponding zoning are revised to limit development.”
The City should not approve any project unless and until it has prepared the required Report and can make a finding that there is sufficient infrastructure citywide.
Project-based EIRs and even Community-Plan level analysis is not sufficient to overcome the necessity for the Report. The General Plan EIR stated:
“focusing the analysis at the neighborhood level may be too myopic resulting in a loss of "overview" or "the big picture".
Any projects which rely on a faulty approval may be subject to court rulings in the matter. We reserve the right to challenge any faulty approvals issued by the City.

Sincerely:

James O'Sullivan
213-840-0246

Fix The City
Fixlosangeles.com
Miracle Mile Residential Association

cc. Mayor, City Attorney, City Controller, City Council members, Director of Planning

Comments to the Citywide Urban Design Guidelines

From Dick Platkin

I have quickly looked over the three sets of design guidelines and have several reactions.

First, the Framework already has a design chapter, Chapter 5, which is quite good. If these three sets of design guidelines are to augment and update the Framework as appendices, then why is there is no effort to connect these new guidelines with the existing, adopted guidelines? There are obviously many points of connection, yet at no point is there any effort to amend the existing document's design section.

Second, I cannot think of any situations since 1995 where the Framework's Chapter 5 was ever used or invoked to modify a project's design or to make a legal findings. So, why should the Framework now be implicitly updated, if it design role has been continually ignored?

Third, just as the original design chapter was flushed down the memory hole, I would expect the same for these three new appendices. They can't be used for most buildings because they are built by right and only require LADBS-issued building permits. In those cases all the LADBS plan checkers do is review projects for compliance with the LAMC's Building Code and the Zoning Code.

Plus, the appendices can't be used for Specific Plan and CDO projects because these regulations already have their own Design Guidelines, and there is no legal or administrative procedure to supersede those with these three design documents.

Furthermore, they can't be used for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes because those only relate to use, not the structure built on the desired use.

So, even if the three sets of design guidelines were better linked to the existing General Plan Framework, I can't think of many discretionary actions where a Zoning Administrator or Planner would be able to use these design guidelines to modify a proposed project.

Fourth, the problems of the Framework are not addressed by new Design Guidelines. The Framework is the heart of the city's General Plan, yet its horizon year of 2010 is nearly over, with no known efforts to update it or even resume monitoring the General Plan after a hiatus over 10 years. Instead a few Community Plans are being updated to elaborate an outdated planning document. Design Guidelines are totally oblique and peripheral to what is truly needed, and, in effect, are little more than a distraction from serious planning work which Los Angeles desperately needs.

Fifth, we need to remember that design review, even if well done, can never substitute for good planning and good zoning. Though good design obviously is desirable, for the most part it is a distraction to avoid attention of the major planning and zoning issues facing a community. Instead, activists get caught up in secondary questions about window treatments, step backs, and colors.

Core Findings Draft Ordinance - Staff Report

Dear Interested Parties, Please find attached the staff report and draft ordinance for the Core Findings Draft Ordinance (CPC-2010-1572-CA). Of the six code amendments comprising the Code Simplification Work Program, this is the first to be scheduled for CPC. Due to the size of the attachment, the environmental review has not been attached here, however, copies are available upon request. The draft ordinance updates the zoning code’s common findings for conditional uses, adjustments, and other quasi-judicial land use approvals to provide a better framework for analyzing the merits of proposed development projects and eliminate redundancy in case processing. Please contact Tom Rothmann by email at tom.rothmann@lacity.org or by phone at (213) 978-1370 for copies of the environmental review or other questions. Please feel free to share this with anyone you believe would also be interested.

Best regards, Gabriela — Gabriela Juarez Department of City Planning Code Studies Section 200 N Spring St, Room #763 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mailstop: 395 Ph: (213) 978-1337 Fax: (213) 978-1334

Core Findings Report

Zoning Code Simplification

Dear Friends:

I received an email with a new “zone simplification ordinance” today from Lucille Sanders. I’ve just spent hours pouring through it and I believe everyone needs to read it. This ordinance on its face says it is changing or deleting 24% of findings for CUP’s and Variances. They were easy enough to get around before but Planning is now looking for slam dunks. I got mired down in the first part and saw some changes but it wasn’t until I went to the last 10 pages that the real fun began. 83 changes are presented with section and title of code, Purpose, Current finding needed, Proposed finding, disposition and Reason.

The reason I think is simple, to make it easier for Planning to approve more projects, to make many more projects basically by-right. After two devastating audits by Laura Chick and one by Wendy of Planning’s Case Processing Unit I suppose this Ordinance was to be expected. Wendy in her Audit stated.

“Out of all of the audits I have done so far, this is among the most disappointing, because it appears that the City's Planning Department was unable to implement the previous audit's recommendations. The Department gave the reason that budget deficits and other Reorganizations have hampered their ability to make the necessary changes. While the Department has used some of their resources to update community plans and zoning regulations in order to increase projects that can be built by-right, which reduce case processing times, this is not acceptable four and a half years after the original audit came out.”

Some of the changes are a word here and a word there but others remove mitigation measures, monitoring, and environmental review as being redundant to CEQA, that the State has our back. That’s not how I read what is going on in Sacramento. It changes language that protects property adjacent or in the vicinity of a project to a vague “in the same Zone or surrounding neighborhood”. How big a zone or neighborhood area is, is not spelled out. If you live in a Hillside area you need to look at changes that will affect you. Both Hillside and the Flats will get new height and side yard variations. CUP’s for small restaurants wanting to serve alcohol have parking regulations deleted in some cases. Reclamation of surface mining lands is also mixed in, but I have no knowledge of what that means. Eldercare, Homeless shelters, corner commercial, mini-shopping centers and new density bonus findings for greater than what is allowed by-right and major development projects all get new findings or have their old ones deleted.

I am attaching a searchable PDF for your use and will follow up in the coming days with some specific findings. I would love to hear what you have found out.

Jim

James O'Sullivan
213.840.0246 - Cell

Zoning Code Simplification

August 26th, 2010

The Core Zoning Code case that is going before the Planning Commission on October 14, 2010, is the first of the six components of the Core Zoning Code Simplification work program that was laid out to PlanCheckNC at our June meeting. The original work program flyer is attached. This flyer identifies the six components. As you will note the schedule has been modified. In July were told that it would be late September or early October when the first of the six components would go before the Planning Commission.

The first component has now been scheduled for the October 14, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting. The staff report is attached for your review. This was originally scheduled for July 2010.

Multiple Entitlements/Approvals: Synchronize the expiration periods for projects with two or more discretionary land use approvals
Core Findings: Eliminate redundancy and update core findings to provide a better framework for analyzing the merits of proposed development projects

Alan Bell will be at PlanCheckNC on September 11 to present a status update and answer questions.

As we know from experience, the actual language of the changes can be critically important. We have been told that it is Planning Department policy to not release the actual document until it is given to the Planning Commission. Speakers at this meeting should request time to review the actual text as presented, in order to provide comment prior to the Commission vote. Also, attached is a resolution prepared by Jeff Jacobberger that provides a sample for requesting additional time to review the materials.

In terms of reviewing the content, Alan Bell will be invited to attend PlanCheckNC Programs through this work program and NCs may want to develop their own positions as well. Attached is a chart prepared by Sharon Commins that will provide some guidance in researching these issues.

PlanCheckNC will meet twice before the October Planning Commission meeting. There is also time to get this issue on the agenda’s of individual NCs. Hopefully many of you have already begun the discussions regarding this work program.and have a start on how to approach potential changes. We still have no assurances of when we will have the details of what is being proposed. The critical issue is getting time to review and react to the actual changes as proposed to the code. Sixty days should be requested. The clock on the review should not start until the proposed changes are available. There is no time to follow-up on the issues of review and comment if this moves through the system too quickly.

Also, in addition to sending a copy of your resolution/comments to Alan Bell, be sure to include copy to your Council Person and the Planning Deputy, PlanCheckNC (maggi4F@gmail.com) and any other alliances or groups you are working with on this issue.

Maggi Fajnor, Chair
PlanCheckNC
Please note my new e-mail address
maggi4f@gmail.com

Citywide Urban Design Guidelines Negative Declaration-Comments Due 8/25/2010

Citywide Urban Design Guidelines Negative Declaration-Comments Due 8/25/2010

Attached and below is brief info on a negative declaration to citywide urban guidelines. Public comment is due by 25 August.
I (Lucille Saunders) spoke with Michelle Sorkin, city planner on the urban design guidelines, to arrange an appointment (thursday, 10 am, room 621, was set) to review the ENTIRE CASE FILE. Ms. Sorkin advised me
she is "still drafting" the guidelines and will have them completed "hopefully by start of next month."

This is a citywide amendment to the General Plan AND THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT COMPLETED. The only thing available is the (also attached) neg dec "checklist" file.

I and other question how public comment could be in by 25 august to address guidelines not yet written.

Sorkin will be available at the appointment to answer questions, but not even guide drafts will not be available then.

She states as with the housing element, after the completed guidelines there will be "opportunity for public input at the hearings." Well we all recall the housing element hearings where the final report was written before the community meetings were held.

Cindy Cleghorn, of Sunland Tujunga NC and PlanCheck, will accompany me at the appointment thursday. all are welcome and invited to come.

Please send questions, comments, asides, and circulate to help stop these "cart before the horse" patterns. Not to be confused with planning.

Thanks, Lucille

the urban design neg dec is to be ok'd before guidelines completed!

the urban design neg dec is to be ok'd before guidelines completed!ß
i just got off the phone with michelle sorkin, planner on the urban design guidelines. my call was for an appointment (thursday, 10 am, room 621, was set) to review the ENTIRE CASE FILE.

folks, this is a citywide amendment to the general plan AND THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT COMPLETED. the only thing available is the (attached) file we circulated last weekend.

she is "still drafting" the guidelines and will have them completed "hopefully by start of next month."

i questioned how public comment could be in by 25 august in that case.

she will be available at the appointment to answer questions, but the drafts will not be available.

as with the housing element, the completed guidelines will have "opportunity for public input at the hearings." and we all recall the housing element hearings where the final report was written before the community meetings were held.

cindy cleghorn will accompany me at the appointment thursday. all are welcome and invited to come.

please send questions, comments, asides, help.

I would be curious about how the actual designs in the guidelines really matter. Those designs are not characteristic of LA City neighborhoods.

Confusion on policies, environmental, and time sequence

RE: Confusion on policies, environmental, and time sequence.

It is ND (neg dec), not MND--which means there is no environmental impacts, therefore NO MITIGATION in this CITYWIDE AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN.

The point is the Neg Dec or NO IMPACTS is on GUIDELINE which have not been written yet.

This is not on the Hollywood Plan Update. It is part of a barrage of bull being hurled at us in planning--out of sequence and with limited time to review and discuss.

Lucille

Framework Element

http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/05/05.htm

The above link is to the Framework Element. Urban Form, Neighborhood Design. It is all about growth and they were supposed to do demonstration projects.

Curious Initiative from City Planning

A very curious initiative from City Planning. Since they have ignored the Framework's very good chapter on community design for the past 15 years, I wonder why they want to amend it now. Furthermore, how will they implement these amended policies? Since LADBS does not do design review, few cases would ever be subject to these policy amendments.

Be sure the look out for some hidden agendas. Back in about two weeks.

Richard (Dick) H. Platkin, AICP

NEGATIVE DECLARATION-NG-10-280-PL: ENV-2010-715

Initial Notice

FR: Joyce Dillard DA: Aug 4 2010

RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION-NG-10-280-PL: ENV-2010-715. Citywide. The proposed project involves the adoption of Citywide Urban Design Guidelines (“Design Guidelines”) as an Appendix to the General Plan Framework Element for Multifamily Residential, Mixed-Use, Commercial and Industrial land uses. The purpose of the Design Guidelines is twofold: to implement the design values in the 10 Urban Design Principles, a part of the Framework Element, on individual projects; and to consolidate basic Design Guidelines common throughout most Community Plans in one document, allowing individual New Community Plans to provide tailored, neighborhood-specific Design guidelines. The Design Guidelines will establish design expectations for new development based on Citywide goals, policies and objectives. The Design Guidelines will illustrate ways for individual projects to promote walkability, maintain neighborhood form and character, and promote creative infill development solutions. The Design Guidelines will apply to all new developments and substantial building alterations that require discretionary approvals from the Dept. of City Planning. As well, they may also be used by staff in other Departments or community members for advisory review of new development applications. Please call Michelle Sorkin a DAY in advance to review the file: (213) 978-1199. If she is not available, please leave message. Documents are available for REVIEW by APPOINTMENT only at: Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 621, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Comments can be faxed: (213) 978-1226. REVIEW/COMMENT period ends: Aug. 25, 2010.