PLUM Motions for Wednesday's WLASNC Board Meeting - Bus Shelter Advertising, Nomination, SB813, SB828, Tree Ordinance

Motion: The NC shall vote to amend the bus shelter/advertising agreement with JCDecaux as follows, and the Chair shall submit a Community Impact Statement:

1.      Bus shelters must be installed:

a.       On 4 corners of all intersections of 2 roads that each have bus services.

b.      At all intersecting roads that cross Metrorail lines.

2.      Bus shelters must allow ADA access on sidewalks.

3.      Bus shelters must have a slot to include bus schedule and/or electric signs for bus arrival status.

4.      The city may add locations for bus shelters in the future, and Deceaux must install.

5.      The fee paid by Deceaux to city shall increase.
 

Facts and background:

1.      Numerous bus stops have no shelters, which harms riders who must wait up to 30 minutes in bad weather.

2.      The agreement prevents installation of shelters at these locations, unless Deceaux allows it.

Findings and justifications:

1.      WRAC LUPC voted unanimously at its Feb. 2018 meeting to approve a similar resolution.

2.      The absence of bus shelters decreases ridership, and harms the poor disproportionately.

Dissenting opinions: None.

Ex parte communications: None disclosed.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest: None disclosed.


This resolution is only a recommendation from the PLUM Committee, and it will be considered by the Board of Directors for a final decision on Mar. 28.

Resolution: PLUM voted, 5-0-0, to recommend that the Board appoint Arman Ghorbani to a Boardmember seat on PLUM:

Dissenting opinions: None.

Ex parte communications: None disclosed by any committee members.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest: None disclosed by any committee members.

To government agencies: Only the Chair and designated Boardmembers may testify to public agencies on behalf of the West L.A. Sawtelle NC. The Board requests that the Council Office and private/non-profit entities do not testify or speculate on behalf of the NC.


This resolution is only a recommendation from the PLUM Committee, and it will be considered by the Board of Directors for a final decision on Mar. 28.

Resolution: The PLUM voted to recommend that the NC oppose SB 813 and authorize the Chair to submit Community Impact Statements in the future.

Facts and background:

1.      The bill would eliminate the floor area square footage of Accessory Dwelling Units from a site’s total floor area.

Findings and justifications:

1.      WRAC LUPC voted unanimously (8-0-0) to approve a similar resolution at its Feb. 2018 meeting.

  1. No compelling reason, and no planning justification, has been presented that demonstrates how the physical conditioned, livable space of an ADU is different from the physical conditioned, livable space of the primary residence on the property.

Dissenting opinions: None

Ex parte communications: None disclosed by any committee members.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest: None disclosed by any committee members.

To government agencies: Only the Chair and designated Boardmembers may testify to public agencies on behalf of the West L.A. Sawtelle NC. The Board requests that the Council Office and private/non-profit entities do not testify or speculate on behalf of the NC.


This resolution is only a recommendation from the PLUM Committee, and it will be considered by the Board of Directors for a final decision on Mar. 28.

Resolution: The PLUM voted to recommend that the NC oppose SB 828 and authorize the Chair to submit Community Impact Statements in the future.

Facts and background:

1.      The bill would allow the state to intervene and approve residential projects by-right up to 200% of cities’ RHNA numbers.

Findings and justifications:

1.      WRAC LUPC voted unanimously (8-0-0) to approve a similar resolution at its Feb. 2018 meeting.

2.      This bill is based on arbitrary numbers, and by-right approvals with no affordable housing requirements would be a disincentive for developers to use city density bonus ordinances that produce affordable housing.

Dissenting opinions: None.

Ex parte communications: None disclosed by any committee members.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest: None disclosed by any committee members.

To government agencies: Only the Chair and designated Boardmembers may testify to public agencies on behalf of the West L.A. Sawtelle NC. The Board requests that the Council Office and private/non-profit entities do not testify or speculate on behalf of the NC.


Motion: The NC shall vote to improve the protection of existing trees in conjunction with the City Council’s motion to strengthen the Protected Tree Ordinance (177404) and authorize the Chair to submit Community Impact Statements for CF 03-1459-S3.

 

 

City motion: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2003/03-1459-s3_mot_11-22-2017.pdf

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=03-1459-S3

Current ordinance: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/ProtectedTreeOrd.pdf


Facts and background:

1.      Two westside councilors proposed the motion - CD 5 (Koretz) and CD11 (Bonin), which calls for the Urban Forestry Division to study the issue and propose recommendations.

2.      The Council has voted to improve protection of wildlife areas, urban forest and biodiversity (CF #15-0499) and prevent habitat fragmentation (CF #14-0518).

3.      The Council approved the Protected Tree Ordinance, which aims to preserve four significant native trees: All native oaks (except Scrub Oak), Black Walnut, Western Sycamore, and California Bay.

4.      These significant trees are regularly chopped down by developers in order to build larger buildings, and preservation does not happen, because the loophole that allows removal if the trees impede “reasonable development”.

5.      Developers do not leave enough room for trees to grow, and stuff them in planters with barely any soil. Trees need 15 x 15 ft. area to expand their branches (at least), and developers should include enough open space in flat dirt to do so.

6.      Other cities require developers to build around large and important trees and have larger lists of protected species.

a.       Agoura Hills: Example of L-shaped office building built around large oak trees (red circles):

b.      Pasadena: The has more categories of trees, more species of trees, more levels of protection, and various levels of protection and mitigation (see exhibit).

                                                              i.      100+ trees are on the city’s protected list.

                                                            ii.      Categories: Public, landmark, specimen, native.

 

Findings and justifications:

1.      Trees are not being adequately protected, and city departments are not collaborating sufficiently to enforce the existing ordinance.

2.      “Reasonable development” is considered to be 5-story buildings that cover 80% of the property and provide negligible open space.

3.      30-55% of the city’s tree canopy was lost in the last 10 years, primarily because of new large buildings that replace green space and these new buildings provide little dirt area for new, large replacement trees (2017 USC study).

4.      Trees provide numerous benefits - absorb carbon dioxide to reduce climate change (reduces heat and air conditioning costs), retain water (prevents landslides), provide habitat for animals/birds, and add greenery and shade to neighborhoods (increases property values and improves mental health).

eric nakamura1 Comment