Documents
Documents
Pacific Palisades Community Council Document Library
3. Whereas, given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution
This document does not have a linked original file.
Document text
3. Whereas, given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution “No reimbursement” clause is cited inappropriately in this legislation,
vii.
Therefore, **Pacific Palisades Community Council** **(PPCC)** opposes SB 827 in its present form **and requests that it be withdrawn.****PPCC further calls upon the City of Los Angeles, through its official representatives, to vigorously oppose SB 827 and protect local authority and control over land use and planning."** Richard Cohen seconded the motion as stated above.
Chris then explained SB 827 as a bill that would completely override local land use control and undermine the City’s efforts to address the housing crisis.
She distributed a report (see attachment below) and read from portions of the report, including the Los Angeles Times’ concluding paragraph in its recent editorial about the bill as set forth in the attachment.
Chris also announced that Councilmember Bonin had advised her and Chair Maryam Zar that his position on the bill is the same as the Times’ concluding paragraph.
Extensive discussion then ensued.
Many board members expressed concern about the proposed preemption of local land use control, and indicated recognition that the bill would extinguish our local planning and zoning controls in large areas of the City and undermine the City’s own efforts to address the housing deficit with measures such as JJJ.
Several members expressed appreciation for and agreement with an analysis that Jack Allen (a former board member) had distributed to various board members prior to the meeting.
Strong opposition to the bill was expressed by all who spoke.
There were no statements in support of SB 827.
Following discussion, the board voted unanimously to adopt the motion as set forth above. 12.**Adjournment.** Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm**.** **ATTACHMENTS** **ITEM 8.2.1 – PlanCheckNCLA Report by C.
Spitz; Status of Ordinance Allowing Farmers Markets in R Zones (CF 10-1832****)[1]**
**Background:** Nov. 2010: CMs Wesson and Koretz propose allowing farmers markets _by right_ in R and other zones (goal: to provide greater access to fresh, high quality produce to under-served communities).
April 2011: PPCC opposes _by right_ permit process for farmers markets in R zones and expresses concern about weakening protections for R zones via a conditional use or public benefit process (see prior submittals attached and/or at <http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-1832_misc_4-26-11c.pdf>).
April - May 2011: Pursuant to Planning Dept. recommendations, PLUM and City Council direct creation of a conditional use process for Certified Farmers Markets (CFMs) in R zones, with “500 ft. notification” and public hearing required.
Nov. 2011: CPC recommends draft ordinance, PLUM approves and City Council directs City Attorney (CA) to complete final ordinance; _almost 6 years then pass with nothing further done._ May 2017: PLUM (via Chair Huizar) revives the matter, requesting further amendments, such as allowing some CFMs _by right_ in R zones (proposed in parking lots next to churches and schools).
Sept. 2017: CA submits revised ordinance (key provisions listed below); does _not_ include a _by right_ process as requested by PLUM for CFMs in R zones (discretionary permits required in all R zones); recommends adoption of ND (finding of no significant impacts under CEQA).[2] Nov. 2017: PLUM directs further amendments, including removing annual review requirement and allowing Council Districts discretion to modify hours of operation; recommends adopting ND.
Dec. 2017: Item scheduled to be heard again in PLUM, but continued to a date to be determined.
**Key Ordinance Provisions (as of Sept. 2017):**
Show full text
* CFMs allowed in R zones via a streamlined discretionary permit process (i.e., procedures for adjustments: notice only to abutting owners, on-site posting and public hearing); _but_ hearing not required if written approval submitted from 1) all abutting and across street owners; and 2) 60% of owners within 300 ft. radius.
* Application to be provided to the relevant Councilmember.
* Operating hours: 7am-7pm (with 1 hour before and after also allowed for set up/clean up); 2x week only _(but_ PLUM has now directed possible modification of hours by Council Districts).
* Other operating standards: any lights used are to be shielded from shining “directly or indirectly” on abutting properties or streets; trash containers must be provided; area used must be “cleaned;” noise levels must not exceed ambient levels in R zones under current Code requirements; all signage shall conform to Art. 4.4 of the Code.
* Violations: the ZA “may consider” revoking the grant for failure to comply with requirements.
* Annual review required _(but_ PLUM has now directed removal of this requirement).
* Not included: any parking or toilet requirements; provisions for traffic or vermin control; requirement of notification to local organizations or councils; enforcement mechanisms, including monetary or other penalties, other than possible (discretionary) ZA revocation.
* By right process with performance standards: provided for CFMs in A, C. M and P zones only.
[1] Although not expressly indicated, it appears the ordinance was intended to apply to the use of private property, e.g., vacant lots and parking lots, rather than streets or other public property. [2] Form language (signed by Planning Director Vince Bertoni) is included at the end, indicating disapproval of the ordinance on behalf of the CPC and a recommendation against approval (presumably because this latest iteration – 6 years later – was never presented to the CPC).
**PPCC Letter of
April 25, 2011 (attached to above report):**
April 25, 2011 Councilmember Ed P. Reyes, Chair, Councilmember Jose Huizar, Councilmember Paul Krekorian Planning & Land Use Management Members 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via e-mail Reference: Farmers Markets CF No.10-1832, PLUM Committee Hearing,
April 26, 2011, 2:30 p.m., Public Works Royball Hearing Room 350, CH Dear PLUM Committee Members: The Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) strongly opposes creation of a by-right permit process for non-profit farmers' markets in residential zones.
While we recognize the benefit of providing more outlets for fresh food in under-served communities, we are very concerned about weakening long-standing protections for residential neighborhoods city-wide.
Substantial caution should be exercised before initiating new, streamlined procedures applicable to all residential zones for special uses not otherwise permitted, whether by means of a conditional use/public benefit process or otherwise.
We request sufficient time to investigate and comment on any proposal for a draft ordinance in this regard.
Sincerely, Janet Turner, Chair Pacific Palisades Community Council cc: Alan Bell, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, Whitney Blumenfeld, Norman Kulla, Joaquin Macias **ITEM 11.1 – SB 827/PROPOSED WRAC MOTION** 1) Los Angeles Times Editorial (published 1/22/18): <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-housing-near-transit-20180123-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter>.
Concluding paragraph: "California clearly needs to make it easier to build housing.
And it makes sense to concentrate new housing near mass transit to encourage people to get around without cars.
Surely lawmakers can come up with legislation to push cities to approve taller, more dense housing near transit without completely overriding local control or undermining existing efforts to incentivize the building of affordable housing." 2) C.
Spitz Letter to the Editor/Special to Palisadian-Post (submitted 1/20/18; edited version published 1/25/18): Following up on the Post’s reporting, I want to alert the community to a dangerous bill, SB 827 (Wiener - San Francisco), sponsored by a YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) lobbying group (cayimby.org), ostensibly to address the state’s housing deficit.
The stated goal of the YIMBY movement is to “reverse” long-standing zoning distinctions (particularly single-family/R1, which it regards as an exclusionary, antiquated relic) in order to achieve denser housing statewide. SB 827 is the camel’s nose in the tent.
It would completely override local land use controls in areas near major transit hubs in _all_ California cities.
In large swaths of Los Angeles, new buildings 45 to 85 feet high would be exempt from local maximum height limits; density, design and parking requirements, R1 zoning and community and specific plans would be preempted within a quarter to half-mile radius of major transit corridors and rail/bus stops; and voter-supported initiatives to address affordable housing such as Measure JJJ would be made meaningless.
But don’t take my word for it.
As a YIMBY supporter enthuses: _"Yes, you read that right. SB-827 preempts a city’s restrictions on parking minimums, floor area ratio, and residential density”_ (Eastbayforeveryone.org).
This radical bill is causing great concern regionally.
The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils’ leadership has recommended a motion opposing SB 827 to its 13 member-councils (including PPCC); Brentwood Community Council and others have already voted to oppose.
Paul Koretz (CD5) has called the bill “devastating” and “the worst idea I’ve ever heard.” As of this writing, Mike Bonin is still studying it but indicates he has concerns.
Why should Palisadians care?
After all, the bill may not directly impact us since we don’t seem to have major transit hubs – _yet_ (I’m told that the City has been influenced to increase bus trip frequency and add stops on streets elsewhere; it could happen here on Sunset).
Even so, most of us regularly travel outside the Palisades and would certainly be affected by the bill’s impacts on Brentwood, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles and beyond.
Ultimately, the bill is a slippery slope towards an even greater “top down” takeover of local control – with potential extinguishment of community and specific plans and single-family zones.
Reasonable citizens want to solve the affordable housing crisis, but SB 827 – an unprecedented power grab that would force statewide zoning control – is not the answer.
Christina Spitz; for identification only: PPCC Chair/President Emeritus 3) WRAC councils voting _to date_ to oppose SB 827 (5 of 13): Brentwood CC, Westwood CC, Westside NC, Bel Air-Beverly Crest NC, South Robertson NC; remaining councils are agendizing at upcoming meetings.
_________________________
[Return to top of page](https://pacpalicc.org/index.php/scroll-of-2018-meeting-minutes/)
MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 8th 2018
Summary
The Pacific Palisades Community Council unanimously voted to oppose SB 827 in its present form and requested its withdrawal, citing concerns that the bill would override local land use control and undermine the City's housing initiatives. The meeting also reviewed the status of a farmers market ordinance for residential zones and discussed various related policy matters.