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
No comments:
Post a Comment