2026-10-13 - Planning and Land Use Management Committee

Summary

Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
Blumenfield chaired; the first caption is at 3:05 and the meeting was adjourned at 2:21:27, with no recesses or closed sessions.
Roll call found four members present (Blumenfield, Raman, Jurado, Lee) with Nazarian absent at first; he voted by the first consent vote, and Raman was absent from the alfresco item onward.
Items 11 and 14 were continued to October 27, 2026.
Timestamps switch to h:mm:ss after the first hour.

Downtown Entertainment Zone program

10:50-11:53, 19:40-21:32

Item 4, a Jurado motion to study an entertainment zone program downtown, drew three speakers in support (a downtown business group, the Historic Core Business Improvement District and the Independent Hospitality Coalition).
Adopted on consent with an amendment requiring public hearings with Council District 14 stakeholders, small businesses, cultural groups, business improvement districts and neighborhood councils.

Riverwalk at Studio City appeals (CF 26-1081)

12:34-15:34, 22:02-56:45

Items 15 and 16: appeals of the subdivision map and density bonus approvals for an 814-home mixed-use project on Ventura Boulevard. Council District 4 staff read negotiated conditions (375,000 dollars for river and intersection work, 300,000 dollars for river maintenance, up to 23 shade trees).
Appellants stressed wildfire evacuation times, habitat and a landscaped parkway; the applicant said an evacuation study showed under 20 minutes; speakers were split between neighbors worried about fire escape routes and a larger group backing the housing and river access.
Vote: all appeals denied, 5 ayes, with a fire-safe regulations condition and confirmation that the parkway is included.

Venice Coastal Zone alfresco dining public access study

57:45-1:22:29, 2:15:02-2:20:50

Item 12: City Planning and the Department of Transportation reported that outdoor dining in the Venice Coastal Zone has not harmed coastal access and offered operator-led mitigation measures. The Venice Neighborhood Council and a resident asked for a continuance over notice and cumulative parking impacts.
Blumenfield criticized the departments for leaving out Mobility Plan street projects; a committee member criticized the cost and difficulty of the alfresco program for small businesses.
Approved 4-0; reconsidered later to add a technical correction naming two Transportation lots and approved again 3-1 (Jurado, apparently, voting no).

Sunset Boulevard housing modification appeal (Emerson College)

1:22:31-1:36:34

Item 17: Emerson College appealed a one-foot reduction in parking level floor heights at a Hollywood housing project, arguing an eighth story was built before its permit was issued. The applicant disputed the safety claims; the Council District 13 office recommended denial and promised follow-up with Building and Safety.
Appeal denied, 4 ayes.

SB 79 local alternative plan

1:36:37-2:15:00

Item 18: City Planning presented the framework for a citywide local plan under SB 79 (146 station areas, 50 percent minimum capacity rule, exceptions for fire zones and historic resources, state review in fall 2028).
Two advocates asked for displacement risk as a guiding indicator. Members raised funding, displacement, commercial corridors and the lack of any low-rise ordinance filings.
Approved as amended, 4 ayes; the item also goes to Budget and Finance.

3:05-10:50, 11:53-12:34, 15:34-19:40, 21:32-22:02, 56:45-57:45, 2:15:00-2:15:02, 2:20:50-2:21:27

Items 1 through 10 and 13 were taken on consent, 5 ayes: a Q condition amendment for an ordinance (item 1); a motion by Yaroslavsky, Padilla and Harris-Dawson to streamline condo and ADU condo subdivisions (item 2, backed by a housing advocacy group); a motion by Park on Zone Zero fire-safety rules, adopted as amended to assign lead departments (item 3; a resident backed it and asked for an independent scientific panel); motions adopted as proposed (items 5 through 7); a General Plan amendment and zone change to public facilities with a CEQA exemption (item 8); two low-rise ordinance motions noted and filed (items 9 and 10); and a draft ordinance on low-rise projects over a quarter mile from transit, limiting them to ten rather than 11 units (item 13; opposed by a housing advocacy group).
Neighborhood council impact statements were noted for items 9, 10 and 11; item 11 (Council File 26-1043) was continued to October 27, 2026 along with item 14, and no one commented on it. General public comment drew no speakers.

Based on human-uploaded captions, which may still contain errors; names, numbers, speaker identities and some vote tallies are garbled in places. The captions do not label speakers, and some committee remarks are attributed by context.

Time on topic (from transcript timestamps; approximate, covers about 138 minutes from the first caption to adjournment; there were no recesses):

Topic	Minutes	Share
SB 79 local alternative plan	38	27%
Riverwalk at Studio City appeals (CF 26-1081)	38	27%
Venice Coastal Zone alfresco dining public access study	31	22%
Routine and consent items	15	11%
Sunset Boulevard housing modification appeal (Emerson College)	14	10%
Downtown Entertainment Zone program	3	2%

Agenda

Report on second and last one-year extension of the interim prohibition on permits for RV Parks as a Public Benefit Project (CF 25-0843).

Sources

Video

Watch the video

Transcript

These are uploaded (human-made) English captions; minor errors are possible.

Transcript

03:05All right. Good afternoon

03:06everybody. Welcome, members of

03:07the public, members of the

03:09committee. This is a regularly

03:10scheduled meeting of the

03:11Planning and Land Use

03:12Management Committee. Mr.

03:13Rosales, would you get us

03:14started by calling the roll?

03:16Yes. Blumenfield. Present.

03:19Raman. Yes. Here. Hurado. Here.

03:22Lee Nazarian, absent. Four

03:25members present and a quorum.

03:27Great. We're going to start

03:29this meeting by taking public

03:30comment, as we do in this

03:31committee, from people who've

03:32signed up for three or more

03:34items. And then we'll take up

03:36we'll hear from folks who are

03:38going to wish to speak on any

03:39of the consent items. And then

03:42we'll on the items that we're

03:44going to hear, we'll go through

03:45those items individually, and

03:46we'll have public comment at

03:48the time that we take up the

03:50item. That way it's more

03:52relevant. We'll then remove

03:53through the remaining agenda

03:54items one by one, listen to

03:56staff presentations, take

03:57public comment and vote

03:58accordingly. Again, general

04:00public comment in this

04:01committee is held at the end

04:03after all the items are

04:05completed and that is general

04:06public comment on items that

04:07are within the jurisdiction of

04:08this committee, but are not

04:09specific to an item on the

04:11agenda. Mr. These less, would

04:13you please read the rules for

04:15public comment into the record?

04:17Yes. Members of the public

04:18wishing to speak on one agenda

04:20item only shall have an

04:22opportunity to speak for one

04:23minute. Appellants and

04:25applicants will be given an

04:26opportunity to speak when their

04:27item is called. Each appellant

04:29and applicant has a total of

04:32three minutes to speak. An

04:33appellant can choose to have a

04:35single representative speak on

04:36his or her behalf, or divide

04:38the three minutes among his or

04:40her team. Anyone else,

04:42including an attorney or

04:43project manager, wishing to

04:45speak on an appellant's behalf

04:47who does not do so during this

04:49three minute period, may offer

04:50a minute of public comment

04:52whenever the committee

04:53chairperson opens the public

04:55comment period for the item.

04:58Therefore, we expect that

04:59appellants and applicants have

05:01their respective teams

05:02assembled and ready to present

05:04at the appropriate times today.

05:07Members of the public wishing

05:08to speak on more than one item

05:10shall state that, and shall be

05:12allowed to speak for a total of

05:13two minutes. Failure to submit

05:15public comment in a timely

05:17manner before the comment

05:18period for the item ends.

05:20Results in forfeiture of the

05:22opportunity to participate in

05:24public comment for the item as

05:27stated by the chair. General

05:28public comment will be taken at

05:30the end of the meeting. Mr.

05:32chair, if I may, for the record

05:34for item number 11, Council

05:35file number 26-1043. A

05:40community Impact statement has

05:41been submitted by United

05:43Neighborhoods. Count United

05:45Neighborhoods Neighborhood

05:47Council in support of the

05:48matter and for item numbers

05:51nine and ten. Council file

05:53numbers 25-1083-S1 and

06:0125-1083-S2. Community impact

06:03statements have been submitted

06:04by the Westwood Neighborhood

06:06Council. Mr. city Attorney,

06:08please provide additional

06:09guidance on public comment.

06:13When speaking on the agenda

06:14items, you must be on topic.

06:15Our goal is to get through as

06:17many speakers as we can. If you

06:19are not speaking on topic or if

06:21we cannot tell whether you are

06:22speaking on an agenda item, you

06:24will get one brief warning from

06:25the city attorney or the chair.

06:27If you do not immediately get

06:28clearly on topic or if you

06:30stray off topic, you will

06:31forfeit the rest of your time

06:32and we will move on to the next

06:34speaker. We will inform you

06:36when your time is up. Okay.

06:39Before we begin public comment,

06:40I'm going to recommend that

06:42item 11 and item 14 be

06:45continued until October 27th,

06:482026. Also, I'm going to

06:50recommend items one through ten

06:53and 13 for consent with the

06:56following recommendations. For

06:59one, adopt the Draft Ordinance

07:00for Investing Zone Change to

07:01amend the qualified Q

07:02Conditions of Zone Change

07:04ordinance number 187209.

07:07Subject to the conditions of

07:08approval and environmental

07:09clearance as recommended by the

07:10City Planning Commission report

07:11dated August 18th, 2026. For

07:13item two, it's to adopt the

07:15motion for item three. It would

07:17be to adopt, as amended, with

07:18the following amendments to the

07:19lead of moving clauses. Numbers

07:22three through six per count per

07:23Council. District 11.

07:25Specifically, first moving

07:26clause C, L, A, and c o as lead

07:28to remain. Second moving cloth

07:31seats, moving clause C, l, a

07:32and CEO as leads to remain.

07:35Third moving clause ad the CAO

07:37as the lead. Fourth moving

07:39clause ad the CAO as the lead.

07:41The fifth moving clause make

07:43the Department of City Planning

07:44as the lead. The sixth moving

07:46clause make C and LAFD as

07:50co-leads. For item four. The

07:52recommendation would be to

07:52adopt the motion with the

07:54following amendment to the

07:54second moving clause would say

07:56specifically, I further move

07:57that the Council instruct the

07:59Planning Department in

08:00consultation with the

08:00Transportation Department,

08:01Bureau of Street Services,

08:02Bureau of Engineering, and

08:03Bureau of Building and Safety,

08:05the Police Department and the

08:07City Attorney and the State of

08:08California Department of

08:09Alcohol Beverage Control to

08:10conduct the necessary public

08:11hearings that include Council

08:13District 14 stakeholders, small

08:14businesses, hospitality

08:16specialists, cultural

08:17organizations, business

08:18Improvement districts and

08:18neighborhood councils to shape

08:20the Entertainment Zone program

08:21and ensure it reflects

08:22community priorities and

08:23incorporate the public hearings,

08:25feedback into the requested

08:26report and recommendations for

08:28items five through seven. The

08:30recommendation would be to

08:31simply adopt the motions for

08:33item eight. The recommendation

08:35would be to adopt the one

08:38resolution for a General Plan

08:39amendment, and two the draft

08:40Zone Change Ordinance from QM

08:431-1 to TPF dash one, which is

08:45public facilities subject to

08:47conditions of approval and

08:48findings as recommended by the

08:49City Planning Commission report

08:50dated October 5th, 2026, and to

08:52determine, based on the whole

08:53of the administrative record,

08:54that the project is exempt from

08:56CEQA pursuant to state CEQA

08:57guidelines. Article 19, section

08:5915332, class 32, and there is

09:00no substantial evidence

09:02demonstrating that an exception

09:03to a categorical exemption

09:04applies pursuant to sequel

09:05guidelines. Section 1530.2

09:08applies for item nine and ten.

09:10The recommendation would be to

09:11note and file the motions for

09:12item 13. The recommendation to

09:14be would be to adopt the draft

09:16ordinance dated September 17th,

09:172026, and the environmental

09:18clearance and findings as

09:20recommended by the City

09:20Attorney in its report dated

09:22September 24th, 2026.

09:24Colleagues. If does anyone wish

09:28to call any of these consent

09:29items special or hear them

09:31separately? Okay, then we will

09:34take those up on consent after

09:35we do public comment. So now

09:38we'll move to public comment.

09:39And we will begin with people

09:41who have signed up for three or

09:43more items. So if you have

09:45signed up for three or more

09:47items, please come forward now.

09:51Stage left or house left. Stage

09:54right. Over with the sergeant.

09:57Okay. Seeing nobody coming

09:59forward for three or more. Are

10:01you here for three or more

10:02items? Okay. Not the consent

10:06items. Well, we're about to

10:07take the consent item next, but

10:10either way. If I. If you're

10:14here for three, you know what?

10:16We'll we'll do that. If you're

10:17here for the three or more

10:18items or you're here for any of

10:20the items that we called on

10:22consent, please come forward.

10:23Let's make it easy that way.

10:25And you can just, you can line

10:26up. And again, if you're here

10:28for three or more items or any

10:30of the consent items, come

10:32forward and then we'll take the

10:33other items that were that were

10:35not on consent. One by one as

10:37we go. And also we are going to

10:39take up out of order. We're

10:42going to start with afterwards

10:45with the 15 and 16. After we

10:48get through public comment.

10:50Okay. Go ahead. Good afternoon.

10:52Ani Boyajian with Please state

10:54here in strong support of item

10:55four. First, we want to thank

10:57Council Member Gerardo for your

10:59leadership and commitment to

11:00revitalizing downtown. Downtown

11:02Los Angeles is the economic

11:03engine of the city of Los

11:05Angeles, generating nearly a

11:06third of the city's essential

11:08tax revenue. Yet the Covid 19

11:10pandemic, loss of consistent

11:12daytime crowds and reduced foot

11:14traffic have created quiet

11:16corridors where once there was

11:17bustle, reduced economic

11:18activity and opportunities for

11:20businesses and record high

11:22office vacancy rates.

11:24Establishing an entertainment

11:25zone would be an important tool

11:26to activate public spaces,

11:28bring more people to downtown

11:30and support the restaurants,

11:31bars and businesses that make

11:33our community vibrant. It

11:34builds on downtown's existing

11:36hospitality and tourism

11:37industries while creating new

11:39opportunities for economic

11:40growth, especially as we

11:41prepare to welcome the world at

11:43our doorstep. We look forward

11:44to working with the city to

11:45ensure the future program and

11:47designated zones reflect

11:48downtown's community and

11:49business needs. Thank you.

11:53Thank you. Next speaker, state

11:54your name and which items you

11:56wish to speak to. Excuse me.

11:58Council member. Yes. Hi. Chair

12:00for Council for items number 15

12:02and 16. I believe there may be

12:03some modifications before

12:06public comment is taken on

12:07those two items. Those should

12:08be read into the record. Okay.

12:10You're welcome to read in the

12:12modifications into the record.

12:13I don't think legally we have

12:14to until since hasn't been

12:16heard before council, but just

12:17to be extra transparent, let's

12:20go ahead and do that. I believe

12:23representative from city four

12:24is prepared to read those into

12:25the record. Thank you.

12:34Honorable. We'll get to you in

12:35just a planning and Land Use

12:37Management Committee members.

12:38My name is Miles or planning

12:39director for Council District

12:40four. The office of

12:41Councilmember Nithya Raman. In

12:44regards to the project at 12555

12:47Inter Boulevard. Council file

12:5026-1081. I would like to read

12:51the following conditions that

12:53we have negotiated with and

12:56secured with the applicant.

12:59Number one authorize the Bureau

13:00of Engineering in coordination

13:02with the City Administrative

13:04Officer and any other relevant

13:05agencies, to accept a

13:07contribution in the amount of

13:10$375,000 from Cedillo City

13:11Sports Center LLC, a California

13:13limited liability company, to

13:15support both civil and traffic

13:16engineering and landscape

13:18design work for the following

13:19subset of additional scope

13:21elements for the L.A. Riverway

13:22Segment eight project. These

13:24include the civil and landscape

13:25design of the existing section

13:26of the L.A. River west of

13:28Whitsett Avenue to the dead end

13:30of Valley Drive south. In order

13:32to add connectivity to the

13:33Riverwalk development and

13:34through it to Ventura Boulevard.

13:36The civil. The civil and

13:37traffic engineering, design and

13:38construction associated with

13:40implementing left turn phasing

13:41and associated improvements at

13:43the intersection of Whitsett

13:44Avenue and Moorpark Street. The

13:46contribution of funds from

13:47Cedillo City Sports Center, LLC

13:50and additional scope of work on

13:52these additional elements well

13:54does not grant the Cedillo City

13:55Sports Center, LLC any

13:57engineering, traffic and or

13:58landscape design approval

13:59authority on site project.

14:02Authorize the Bureau of

14:03Engineering to deposit the

14:04aforementioned $375,000 in

14:06funding from Studio City Sports

14:08Center, LLC into a new account

14:10in the Engineering Special

14:11Services Fund. Number 682

14:13Department number 50, entitled

14:14L.A. segment eight additional

14:16scope. Connectivity authorized

14:19Los Angeles Department of

14:21Recreation and Parks in

14:22coordination with the City

14:23administrative Officer and any

14:24other relevant agencies to take

14:25all necessary steps to accept

14:26and receive a contribution of

14:28$300,000 from Studio City

14:29Sports Center, LLC for the

14:31purpose of funding, operations

14:32and maintenance of activities

14:33along the River way and the Los

14:35Angeles River frontage along

14:36the length of the Riverwalk

14:39project. Located at 12555

14:40Ventura Boulevard, authorized

14:42the Los Angeles Department of

14:43Rec and Park to accept the

14:45aforementioned $300,000 in

14:46deposit these funds into the

14:48Department of Recreation and

14:49Parks Parks Fund number 302,

14:52Department number 89 for the

14:54operations and maintenance

14:55activities for the area along

14:56the L.A. River way and the Los

14:58Angeles River frontage. Finally,

15:00require the project to to

15:01include up to 23 shade trees

15:03along the public right of way

15:04on Ventura Boulevard. The city

15:06tree species and number may be

15:08revised upon review by the

15:09Department of Urban Forestry or

15:10Bureau of Street Services

15:11during the building permit plan

15:13check review. No certificate of

15:15occupancy shall be issued for

15:16the project until the applicant

15:17is fully satisfied. All

15:18required monetary contributions

15:20and planted the required shade

15:21trees. The applicant shall

15:23provide written documentation

15:24verifying that all such funds

15:25have been paid and received by

15:26the appropriate departments to

15:28the satisfaction of the city

15:30prior to the issuance of the

15:31certificate of the Certificate

15:32of Occupancy. Thank you. Thank

15:34you. And as mentioned, we're

15:35going to take up these items

15:37after we complete the public

15:39comment on consent items and on

15:42for multiple comments, folks.

15:44And then we'll hear from the

15:45department on these items. And

15:46then we'll have public comment

15:48on 14 and 15. So, sir. Sorry to

15:50have you stand up there, but no

15:51problem. Go ahead, which I if

15:53you'd like to state your name

15:55and which item or items you

15:56wish to speak to. Yeah. First,

15:58a clarifying question. If I'm

15:59speaking, I'm going to speak on

16:00the consent items. If I'm if I

16:02also want to speak on two non

16:04consent items. Can I do that

16:06later in the meeting. You can.

16:07Those right. If you're speaking

16:09three or more items we just ask

16:11you to consolidate it all

16:12because you get just two

16:13minutes total. If you want to

16:14do one minute now and one

16:16minute when we speak to it,

16:17that's fine. But you're up here

16:19now. So I'd say just go ahead

16:21and take your two minutes and

16:22speak to everything you wish to

16:24speak to. Okay? My name is

16:25Jacob Pierce. I'm a policy

16:26associate for Abundant Housing

16:27LA, speaking on items two, nine,

16:29ten, 13, 16 and 18. Time

16:32permitting. So item number two

16:34strongly support this motion

16:36from council members

16:37Yaroslavsky, Padilla and

16:39Council President Harris Dawson

16:40to explore streamlining for the

16:42subdivision process for condos

16:44and Adu condos. We appreciate

16:45the leadership on this issue.

16:47Nine and ten will be watching

16:49closely some good ideas in here.

16:50It's important that they don't

16:51slow down. Badly needed

16:53amendments to the low rise

16:54ordinance. We need those to

16:55move forward. Item 13 abundant

16:58housing. LA strongly opposes

17:00this effort to limit low rise

17:03ordinance projects greater than

17:04a quarter mile from Tod stops

17:07to ten units rather than 11.

17:09This is the wrong direction,

17:10given that the ordinance is

17:12already not delivering housing,

17:14the unit count is actually

17:16counterproductive in the first

17:17place, and housing advocates

17:18would prefer to see it removed

17:20so that buildings are regulated

17:22only by their form. Item 16

17:25Riverwalk at Studio City. Great

17:27project. Please deny the appeal

17:28and sustain Kpcc's

17:30recommendation and allow this

17:31vital mixed income housing

17:32project to to proceed to the

17:33next step. Item 18. First of

17:36all, we need to. This is the

17:40toad app. We need to ground

17:42redistribution decisions in

17:44housing economics and

17:45feasibility. We don't want to

17:46park excess capacity on

17:48boulevards where the

17:49theoretical capacity won't do

17:52won't actually change the

17:53housing produced. For example,

17:55hardly anyone is going to build

17:56a ten story building on a

17:57commercial boulevard, just

17:59doesn't pencil a historic

18:00districts DCP should not be

18:03exporting density from

18:05Noncontributing properties

18:06purely because of. They're in

18:08historic district boundaries.

18:10Fire severity. Important to

18:14consider this issue carefully

18:15so that you're allowing

18:18adequate density in non

18:21hillside fire severity zones.

18:24The industrial language looks

18:26good and urge you. Great. Thank

18:31you very much. Okay. Next

18:33speaker, please let us know

18:35your name and which item or

18:37items you wish to speak to. My

18:38name is Adele Slaughter. I'm

18:39speaking on behalf of myself.

18:41I'm speaking on item number

18:42three on the consent agenda. I

18:44strongly support Council member

18:47parks motion and its insistence

18:49that Los Angeles do its

18:50homework before drafting an

18:52ordinance I also support. I

18:53believe there's an amendment

18:54maybe on file, that they add an

18:57independent scientific advisory

18:58panel. To review the zone zero,

19:01you need to look at zone zero

19:03and not just jump to the fact

19:05that you think that it's about

19:07the trees or the vegetation,

19:10because we know that the fire

19:12in Palisades and in Altadena

19:14was spread house to house,

19:17Ember by Ember, and that I have

19:20a friend, many friends actually,

19:21whose trees, whose houses

19:23survived because they were

19:24behind trees, while all the

19:25other houses on their block

19:27burned down because there were

19:28no trees. So, and I am

19:31definitely a tree advocate, and

19:32I would like us not to destroy

19:35our canopy because of zone zero.

19:36Thank you, thank you. Next

19:40speaker. Good afternoon. My

19:44name is Blair Bessen. I'm the

19:45executive director of the

19:46Historic Core Business

19:47Improvement District, and I'm

19:48speaking on item number four. I

19:51appreciate Councilwoman

19:53Gerardo's support in this

19:55initiative. And with Uli, we're

19:57trying to, as business

19:58improvement districts come up

19:59with great solutions for our

20:01downtown, which has suffered

20:02greatly since Covid 19 and the

20:05riots of 2020 and 2025. And we

20:09know that these districts do go

20:11a long way. Entertainment zones

20:12go a long way for helping bring

20:14back. Cities and vibrancy. We

20:19also know enforcement is an

20:21issue, but do you have your

20:22unarmed security here? I hear

20:23an awful lot of talk about that.

20:25You have eight business

20:26improvement districts in the

20:27region, and we would love to be

20:29supportive in that way for all

20:31the new venues that come to be.

20:33Thank you. Thank you very much.

20:36Next speaker. Good afternoon.

20:40My name is Eddie Navarrette.

20:41I'm with the Independent

20:42Hospitality Coalition to speak

20:43on item number four in support.

20:47I would like to just say that I

20:49know that this motion is only

20:50for a study, but I'm hoping

20:52that we could look this in

20:54having in the eyes of haste,

20:56because we would like to be

20:57ready for the Olympics. And in

20:59order for that to happen,

21:00getting our departments to move

21:01on this may require some sort

21:03of urgency clause. Right now,

21:05our community, the hospitality

21:07community, entertainment

21:08strikes, the LA fires, the

21:10tariffs, the attacks on

21:11immigrants, the messaging by

21:12our president, inflation, all

21:14of these things have really

21:16impacted tourism and that

21:18impacts our bottom line. And so

21:19we are asking what view to use

21:21this as a tool to fight back

21:23against some of these things,

21:24to get people off of their

21:25couch, off their phones, get

21:27them to socialize with one

21:28another, and showcase the rich

21:29arts and culture that we have

21:31in the city of LA. Thank you

21:32guys. Thank you very much. Next

21:34speaker. Okay, no more speakers.

21:37So is anyone else here to speak

21:38on the consent items or

21:41multiple comments? Okay, then

21:43public comment on those items

21:45is closed and let's call the

21:48roll on the consent calendar.

21:52Blumenfield Blumenfield I Raman.

21:54Yes. Bravo. Yes. Lee. Aye

21:58Nazaryan. Aye. Five ayes and

22:00these items are approved. Great.

22:02Thank you. Then that takes us.

22:04We're going to jump to 15 and

22:0616. We'll take these items

22:08together. They are appeals

22:09related to a proposed mixed use

22:11project on Ventura Boulevard in

22:12Studio City and District four.

22:14We'll start with the planning

22:15department for their

22:16presentation. Then we'll have

22:18the appellants and then then

22:21the applicant or the applicants

22:22and then the appellants. And

22:24then we will have public

22:27comment and then committee

22:28discussion. So go ahead. Good

22:34afternoon, honorable members.

22:35My name is Audrina Melkonian.

22:36I'm a city planner in the

22:38Valley Project Planning

22:39Division and the project

22:40planner. For case numbers, BTW

22:42dash 84453-2A and cpc dash

22:492025-5697- db dash PR dash S

22:52dash P-A-1A. I'm joined by

22:56principal planner Phyllis

22:58Nathanson. The subject project

23:00is a subdivision map for the

23:03merger and subdivision into two

23:05master ground lots three

23:08residential lot, five

23:09commercial airspace lot and

23:12eight parking space lots for

23:13the construction of a mixed use

23:15development featuring 814

23:18residential units and

23:19restaurant spaces at 1 to 5

23:2601-125665 Ventura Boulevard.

23:27The proposed project consists

23:30of 814 residential units,

23:32including 46 reserved for very

23:35low income household and

23:3975,968ft■!S of restaurant space.

23:42The first appellant on BTW dash

23:4784453-2. A case challenged the

23:49project's compliance with fire

23:50safety in a very high fire

23:53hazard severity zone. Its

23:55adherence to the local specific

23:57plan, the safety of dirt

23:59hauling and tree removal

24:00impacting wildfire habitat,

24:04wildlife habitat arguing these

24:06issues invalidates the project

24:08California Environmental

24:10Quality Act exemption in

24:12response, city staff clarified

24:13that the project meets strict

24:16Los Angeles Fire Department

24:17safety protocols, defers

24:20building scale deviation to a

24:21component entitlement companion

24:25entitlement case, tightly

24:27regulate hauling activities,

24:29and contains no evidence of

24:31protected wildlife habitat on

24:33the existing commercial site,

24:35thereby fully qualified for a

24:37statutory CEQA exemption under

24:40Assembly Bill 130. The second

24:43appellant's concern regarding a

24:45required ten foot wide concrete

24:47sidewalk is addressed by city

24:50staff, modifying the condition

24:51to include a landscaped parkway,

24:53reflecting a previous verbal

24:55agreement by the City Planning

24:57Commission. Ultimately, staff

24:59maintained that appeals are

25:01deficient and recommends

25:03approving the tentative track

25:04map with the landscape

25:06condition as reflected in the

25:08staff appeal report. The the

25:12appellants on the CPC case

25:13challenged the project's

25:14density bonus specific plan,

25:16project compliance and CEQA

25:18clearance, arguing that the

25:21development violates local

25:23specific plan standards and

25:25poses severe fire safety and

25:27biological impact. In response,

25:29planning staff emphasized that

25:31the state density bonus law

25:33preempts local specific plan

25:35development standards to ensure

25:37that ensure the provision of

25:39affordable housing. Ultimately,

25:41the staff conclude that the

25:43appellants failed to provide

25:47substantial evidence of

25:48specific adverse impacts and

25:51recommend that the City Council

25:52deny the appeal, sustain the

25:54CPC's determination and approve

25:56the project and its relevant

25:59related vesting. Tentative

26:00track map. City planning

26:04recommends sustaining the

26:05action of the City Planning

26:07Commission and deny the appeals

26:09before you, except for the

26:10sidewalk improvement condition,

26:13we are ready to answer any

26:14question that you might have.

26:17Okay, before we do that, we're

26:19going to move to first hear the

26:22appellants and then the

26:23applicant, and then we'll have

26:24public comment and then we'll

26:25go to committee discussion. So

26:26I know there are two appellants

26:28for this item and one for one

26:31of whom is also the appellant

26:32for 15. So if I could have the

26:34two appellants come forward as

26:37their separate appeals, you can

26:38each have up to three minutes.

26:43Please state your name and then

26:44you have three minutes. Thank

26:46you. Good afternoon. My name is

26:47Amy Minter. I'm with with

26:49Carson's Black and Mintier on

26:51behalf of appellants Cedillo

26:52City Residents Association and

26:54save L.A. River open Space.

26:56This Riverwalk project is a

26:58dense development situated in a

26:59very high fire severity zone

27:01and adjacent to the LA River.

27:03In comments. In our appeals, we

27:05raised critical environmental

27:06issues regarding protection of

27:08bat and bird habitats and the

27:10significant impacts of the hall

27:12trips. That will be 140 of

27:15those for daily for nearly a

27:16year. But today I will focus on

27:18the very serious public safety

27:20issue of wildfire evacuation.

27:22The community has deep,

27:24well-founded fears about their

27:25ability to evacuate during a

27:27wildfire because the city

27:28failed to perform evacuation

27:30capacity or progress modeling.

27:32We engaged expert evacuation

27:34consultants at Jensen and

27:35Hughes. They assessed the

27:37evacuation timeline for

27:38residents relying on this

27:39section of Ventura Boulevard

27:41for evacuation of a fire in the

27:43hillsides to the south of the

27:45site. These experts modeled

27:48evacuation time, which would be

27:49the time to reach a freeway

27:51during existing conditions, and

27:52compared that to conditions

27:54with the cumulative projects

27:55being developed along this

27:56section of Ventura Boulevard.

27:57Under existing conditions, it

27:59would take residents

28:00approximately six hours to

28:02reach the safety of a freeway.

28:04This is already an unacceptable

28:06condition. The model then

28:07showed that conditions would

28:09significantly worsen with the

28:10addition of the Riverwalk and

28:11Sportsmen's Lodge projects,

28:13adding these numerous new

28:14residents would trap residents

28:16in a very high fire zone for an

28:18additional 27 minutes, which is

28:19a real life and death

28:21consideration in this area. The

28:23experts also identified severe

28:25choke points where hillside

28:26residents trying to escape will

28:28be blocked from turning onto

28:29Ventura Boulevard, which is

28:31their only route out of this

28:33fire zone. This report raises

28:35serious concerns for public

28:36health and safety that the city

28:37must address before approving

28:39more densely packed residential

28:41development such as this along

28:42this section of Ventura

28:43Boulevard. Due to the

28:45inadequate evacuation times

28:47significantly worsened by this

28:48and other projects, public

28:49health and safety impacts

28:51prevent the city from making

28:52the required findings. To adopt

28:54the track map or to approve

28:56density bonus incentives for

28:57this project. The project also

29:00cannot rely on a CEQA exemption

29:02under AB 130 due to the

29:04wildfire safety inadequacies.

29:05Beyond just the evacuation

29:07issues, the project fails to

29:08comply with fire code

29:10requirements. Buildings are not

29:11all within 150ft of the fire

29:14access road, and that road

29:15fails to use an all weather

29:17material as required. For these

29:19reasons, we urge the city to

29:20grant our appeals and ensure

29:22the protection of the Cedillo

29:23city residents. Thank you.

29:27Thank you. Okay. Welcome. Go

29:35ahead. Good afternoon, Council

29:37members. My name is Mary Ann

29:38King. The City Planning

29:39Commission heard my appeal in

29:41June of this year and supported

29:42the inclusion of a parkway on

29:44Valley Hard Drive. Instead of a

29:46110 foot wide concrete sidewalk.

29:49Unfortunately, it was not

29:49stated in the final motion at

29:51the hearing and planning told

29:52me after they could not modify

29:53the condition, so I had to

29:55appeal the same case twice. I

29:56hope you will honor the CPC's

29:59decision and support the

30:00modified condition before you,

30:02as well as approve the appeal.

30:03For context, this is a massive

30:05project that will interface

30:07with the LA River. The site is

30:09probably five and a half acres

30:10and will be mostly impermeable,

30:12with the exception of lip

30:14planters and some rainwater

30:15catch basins. Replacement trees

30:17will be in planters on site.

30:19Artificial tourists will use

30:21will be used throughout the

30:22open space landscape areas you

30:25know, so environmentally and

30:27ecologically speaking, this is

30:28not the best outcome for

30:29natural green spaces,

30:30especially for a river adjacent

30:32project. However, some of the

30:34deficit can be made up within

30:35the public right of way.

30:36Improvement. The sidewalk along

30:37Valley Heart will be

30:38approximately a quarter mile

30:39long, permitting a combination

30:42landscape parkway and a

30:43sidewalk will provide for a

30:44more permeable space, perhaps

30:46up to 5000ft■!S, just by

30:49incorporating a five foot wide

30:51landscaped parkway with the

30:53sidewalk. This will make a

30:54small but important positive

30:56difference by absorbing

30:57rainwater and runoff directly

30:58into the ground by reducing

30:59urban heat island effect, by

31:01improving air quality, and by

31:03providing better and more

31:03natural environment for trees

31:05to grow and thrive, to name a

31:07few. Cumulatively speaking,

31:09this can make a big difference

31:10and should be the precedent we

31:11want to set for river adjacent

31:13projects. It was stated in the

31:17recommendation report. The

31:18appellants environmental

31:19preference does not invalidate

31:20the established design

31:22standards for the public right

31:23of way improvements required

31:25for the subdivision. Well, I

31:27hope this would be everyone's

31:29environmental preference to

31:31have a positive environmental

31:33future, and it will not

31:34invalidate Vo's standard

31:36designs. It. The River la River

31:39master plan speaks to this very

31:41issue. LA the Rio speaks to

31:44this very issue. For example,

31:46contribute to the environmental

31:47and ecological health of city's

31:49watersheds. Establish a

31:50positive interface between

31:52river adjacent property and

31:54river parks and or greenways.

31:55The mobility plan speaks to

31:59landscape infiltration and the

32:00public right of ways. A housing

32:02element speaks to this, and the.

32:05The professional volunteer

32:07program had great concerns with

32:09the impervious surfaces,

32:12including sidewalks, that this

32:14project will create. So this is

32:16a small ask with a very

32:19positive outcome, and I hope

32:20you will approve the appeal and

32:23the modified condition. Thank

32:24you very much. Thank you. Okay.

32:30Next we'll hear from the

32:31applicant. Who will, I guess,

32:35technically get up to six

32:37minutes. Given that there were

32:39two appellants, you don't need

32:40to take all that time, but

32:44you're legally entitled to it.

32:48Thank you. Good afternoon,

32:50Chair Blumenfeld and members of

32:51the committee. My name is

32:52Sherry Bonds from Greenberg

32:54Glusker, and I am representing

32:56Studio City Sports Center, the

32:57owner and the applicant of this

32:59project. This is the exact type

33:02of housing development project

33:03that AB 130 was designed to

33:06promote. This is an existing

33:08large big box site that is six

33:11acres that is underutilized

33:14when all the big box stores

33:15have closed and it will be

33:17reused and redeveloped as a

33:20housing development project

33:21that includes 814 units, 46 of

33:24which are affordable to very

33:25low income households, and a

33:28large commercial area with an

33:30open public plaza that will

33:32support access to the LA River,

33:35including areas for bike

33:36parking, and will allow

33:39pedestrians to walk from

33:41Ventura Boulevard through the

33:43project to the LA River and

33:45promote LA River development

33:46and access. In addition, the

33:49project will be required to

33:51provide more than $7 million in

33:54park and rec fees and a $1

33:57million in fees. And in

33:59addition, we are. The project

34:00is contributing $650,000 to

34:04support maintenance of the LA

34:06River and to support

34:08development of intersections

34:09and crosswalks near the

34:11property and to the north. In

34:13response to the appeals.

34:15There's no substantial evidence

34:17in the record that any of the

34:19appeals have merit specifically

34:22related to the wildfire issue.

34:25We are not required to do an

34:28evacuation study as because we

34:30are exempt from CEQA, and there

34:32is no other code requirement to

34:34trigger an evacuation study.

34:36And in the letter, the

34:38evacuation analysis that was

34:40submitted to the City Council

34:42this morning by the appellant,

34:45the professional that drafted

34:47the study specifically stated

34:49that we had no requirement to

34:50prepare an evacuation study. We

34:52did prepare an evacuation study

34:55voluntarily. We submitted it to

34:56the city. It's in the record,

34:58and it determines that the

35:00project can be fully evacuated

35:01in less than 20 minutes, and

35:04that we do not significantly

35:07exacerbate the condition. The

35:08existing conditions related to

35:10wildfire safety. Also, we have

35:14a number of studies related to

35:16wildfire and the fire

35:17department's own analysis that

35:19shows that the projects fully

35:22comply with the fire code, with

35:23the building code, and with the

35:26wild interface code. And so

35:30there is no finding at all that

35:32there would be any issues

35:34related to to public health and

35:36safety for wildfire or

35:38evacuation requirements. In

35:40addition, the appellants claim

35:43that the project doesn't

35:44qualify for AB 130 because

35:46there's potential wildfire

35:48wildlife habitat on the site,

35:49and they identify a protected

35:51bat. In response to this appeal,

35:54we did our own Bat study. We

35:56concluded there were no bats at

35:57all in our property because our

35:58property is a surface parking

36:00lot with bright lights. We do

36:02have palms on the street and on

36:05our property that will be

36:07removed as part of the project.

36:09However, because we are in a

36:10very high fire severity zone,

36:12we are required to trim our

36:14palm fronds regularly and we

36:16are not allowed to have palm

36:18fronds because they are, the

36:20embers will allow them to burst

36:22into flames. And if you look at

36:24the lAFD website, information

36:26that we submitted as part of

36:28our response this morning, you

36:30can identify that it is

36:31specifically prohibited to have

36:33palms. And as a result, we will

36:34not have any protected habitat

36:36for any bats. In our Bat study,

36:39we determined there were no

36:40bats on the property. There

36:41were bats flying above the

36:42river, but they were not

36:44landing anywhere in our

36:45property. And so we fully

36:47comply with AB 130. The

36:49applicant took public outreach

36:52very seriously. They met with

36:54numerous groups from every

36:55neighborhood group to

36:57neighborhood council. We went

36:58to neighborhood council

36:59multiple times. There was an ad

37:01hoc committee. And in response

37:03to that, we do have a support

37:05letter that was submitted to

37:06the City Council based on the

37:08amount of work that we did. It

37:11is very important for the

37:12applicant and for the project

37:14that the neighborhood engaged

37:16with us, supports the project

37:19and will be future users of the

37:21project. We specifically have

37:23an outdoor plaza and community

37:25area where the neighbors will

37:26be able to interact, to park

37:28their bikes, to go to the

37:30different restaurants with

37:31outdoor space. And this is

37:33exactly the type of project

37:34that will benefit the immediate

37:37neighbors as well as the larger

37:39community. We thank you for our

37:41time. And in addition, we have

37:43our architects and our dudeck

37:46who did our fire evacuation

37:49study here to respond to any

37:50specific questions. Thank you.

37:55Thank you. Okay. We'll now move

37:59to public comment. Are there

38:00any members of the public who

38:02wish to speak to this item?

38:04These two items? If so, please

38:06come forward. Anyone wish to

38:09speak to this item? Items 14 or

38:1315? I'm sorry, 15 or 16.

38:19Welcome. Hi, my name is Steve

38:21Wolfe. I'm representing Sunset

38:23Hill Neighborhood Association,

38:24a community directly across

38:25from the Riverwalk project. We

38:27cannot continue to approve

38:29major new developments while

38:30deferring repairs to

38:31intersections and roads that

38:33residents and emergency

38:34responders rely on. We have

38:36already documented fatalities

38:37and injury at the at the

38:39Whitsett and Ventura

38:41intersection. We need a

38:42comprehensive plan identified

38:43funding and accountability, not

38:45another explanation of why new

38:47improvements are too costly or

38:49complicated. We request that a

38:50coordinated engineering and

38:51evacuation review, including

38:53funding from the city, state

38:54and lawful developer

38:55contributions, which we are not

38:56against this project. I

38:58disagree with the applicant's

38:59representation that there were

39:00no fire issues. We suffered the

39:032025 fire at sunset. There was

39:05congestion. We could not get

39:06down from the hill and we, on a

39:08daily basis, cannot get out of

39:10our neighborhood. It was in

39:11Ventura, so her claims are

39:13false. There was a study done

39:14in August. They. The results we

39:17have not seen and we don't know

39:18what the timing was, but we

39:20know living in that

39:21neighborhood that we cannot get

39:22in and out. This is only going

39:24to contribute. We want to fund

39:25it, but we'd also like

39:27accountability. Thank you for

39:28your time. Welcome. Hi, Barry

39:33Johnson, Studio City Residents

39:36Association this area is a

39:39death trap waiting to happen

39:42with the next wildfire. There

39:46are only escape routes from the

39:50hillside every half mile.

39:53Laurel Canyon, Whitsett.

39:54Coldwater. Fulton. Aside from

39:57that, you have the LA River

39:59channel directly behind Ventura

40:01Boulevard, blocking any further

40:05exiting from the neighborhoods

40:07there. We're not against

40:11housing, but we are against

40:13excessive density in this area.

40:16And as if you permit this,

40:19you're going to have the

40:21extensive density that is going

40:23to cause havoc with the next

40:29wildfire. Thank you. Hi, I'm

40:34Dale slaughter, representing

40:35myself. I urge you to uphold

40:37the appeal and deny the vesting

40:39track map. I know what the

40:43lawyer said, but if you look at

40:45this, it's literally a half a

40:47mile between Whitsett and Cold

40:49Water, and there's going to be

40:51814 apartments proposed there.

40:53Then the sportsmen's proposes,

40:56what, 520 new apartments? It's

40:59it's literally. And then across

41:00the way, Peter Austin's project

41:03is 27 projects. Now you've got

41:06around, what, 1800 new

41:09apartments. And no one is

41:10really looking at the danger of

41:13how are we going to get these

41:15people out of there? And

41:16there's the people on the hill

41:18that the the the streets are

41:2112in or 12ft, I guess, 12ft

41:22wide. And so maybe one of the

41:26perks that the applicant could

41:27give is redoing those streets

41:29up there and making them

41:31appropriate streets. Maybe one

41:32of the perks that the applicant

41:34could give is planting native

41:37plants, not planting palm trees.

41:42Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, my

41:46name is Vicki Nussbaum. I'm the

41:48executive director of the

41:49Studio City Business

41:50Improvement District. The

41:52Riverwalk project is an

41:54integral improvement to Ventura

41:56Boulevard corridor and the

41:57Studio City bid. We're thrilled

41:59to see thoughtful retail,

42:01housing and LA River

42:03improvements proposed for this

42:05large, unified site. The

42:07investment in this property

42:09uniquely links the west side of

42:11Studio City to the east side of

42:13Studio City, and we're glad to

42:14support the project. Hello, I'm

42:26Stella Debebe and I am a

42:28resident of Studio City. I

42:30actually grew up in Studio City.

42:32It is very exciting to hear

42:34about this project because

42:36honestly, I'm tired of going to

42:37the West Side when I could be

42:39going to Studio City, where

42:41there's going to be vibrant

42:42community that's being

42:43developed. So I'm very excited

42:45about that. I hope it goes

42:46through. I'm Angela by her

42:48younger sister. She always

42:49tends to take most of the time.

42:51I also I live off of Laurel

42:53Canyon. We're incredibly

42:55excited about the Riverwalk and

42:56the future. It represents our

42:59community and the development.

43:01There's currently so many

43:02homeless and dirt and trash and

43:06everything all over the place,

43:07and I think it would be really,

43:09really wonderful to have this

43:10project there, make it more

43:12walkable. Being able to go to

43:13the river bike ride, and I feel

43:15like it would make the

43:16community more safe. So I, I

43:19really highly recommend having

43:20this project. Thank you. Thank

43:24you. Next speaker please. Good

43:28afternoon, council members. My

43:29name is Sophie Gardener, and

43:30I'm speaking today on behalf of

43:31the Valley Industry and

43:32Commerce Association. Strongly

43:35supports the Riverwalk project

43:36at Studio City. This project

43:38redevelops nearly six acres

43:39along the Ventura Boulevard to

43:40deliver 814 much needed housing

43:43units, including 46 affordable

43:45units for very low income

43:47residents. Beyond housing, it

43:48brings over 75,000ft■!S of

43:50restaurant space that will

43:51activate an underutilized site,

43:53generate local economic

43:55activity, and support

43:56neighboring businesses in the

43:57Valley. Riverwalk thoughtfully

43:59balances growth with

44:00neighborhood benefits by

44:01exceeding standard parking and

44:03bicycle requirements, while

44:05preserving the site's historic

44:06sign. We need scalable, transit

44:08served workforce housing in the

44:10San Fernando Valley, and this

44:11project delivers. We

44:13respectfully request your

44:13support today. Thank you. Hi,

44:20my name is Chris Kinnear. Thank

44:22you for the opportunity to

44:23speak today. I'm representing

44:24myself as a long time resident.

44:28Cedillo city is really special.

44:30I've driven past that that

44:31section of Ventura for ages,

44:33wondering when was something

44:34going to happen with it. It

44:36seemed like such an opportunity.

44:37So I'm really grateful that

44:38that is happening. I want to

44:40call out obviously large number

44:41of new units, but most

44:42important to me is actually the

44:44addition of a large number of

44:47low income units. Those I think

44:50are essential for. I have a

44:51young child, was very fortunate

44:54to be able to raise her in an

44:56apartment in that area, walk by

44:57the river, and I know that for

44:59her and other other families

45:01with young kids, that they need

45:03those options to be able to

45:05actually live in the area. So I

45:07really hope that you will

45:08support this and that we can

45:09launch this new development.

45:11And thanks for the opportunity

45:12to speak. Thank you very much.

45:18Mr. Reid. Welcome. Good

45:25afternoon, Council members. My

45:27name is Bart Reid and the

45:28executive director of the

45:29Transit Coalition. As a

45:32historical reference, I used to

45:34go bowling every Saturday for

45:36like ten years in a row.

45:39Decades ago, before most of,

45:41you know, in the John Ferraro

45:43days. Anyways, this property is

45:46important. It's very close to

45:47the markets. It's very close to

45:49the communities. People can

45:51live with this project, the

45:52Riverwalk. And instead of

45:54driving to work, if they doing

45:56their screenplays or doing

45:58their creative work for the

45:59studios, they're located right

46:01there. There's going to be live

46:03workspace. It's going to be a

46:04really good project and

46:06encourage you to approve it. We

46:09don't have a problems with

46:10mountain lions on this project.

46:11We don't have problems with

46:13anything except for it's a good

46:16project. We have 2024 hour bus

46:19service transportation. It's a

46:21good project, and I urge you to

46:23vote yes and approve it. Thank

46:24you. Good afternoon, committee

46:34members. My name is Holly

46:36Williams and a previous life I

46:38worked as a land use attorney,

46:40my new life as a mom and a

46:42professor at USC and as a local

46:44resident, I was happy to dash

46:46down here for my son's ugly

46:48pumpkin play to come in support.

46:51Frankly, I've been impressed

46:52that someone is willing to make

46:53such a major investment in this

46:55community, understand what land

46:57use diligence looks like when

46:58it's done well. And I think the

47:00housing component is rare. I

47:02think it's exciting. I'm

47:03excited to shop there and I'm

47:05very grateful for your

47:06consideration. So thank you. Hi,

47:11my name is Deborah Ash. And the

47:14Los Angeles River can be

47:16embraced and improved by

47:18creating a 24 hour environment

47:20and activate the river. Instead

47:22of it being like a back alley,

47:24the. The proposed project will

47:26create an opportunity for the

47:27river to be safe and accessible.

47:30All of the people living and

47:31visiting the site will help

47:33create access to the important

47:35asset to the community. I would

47:37appreciate your support. Thank

47:39you. Good afternoon. I'm

47:48Victoria Shillam. I've lived in

47:50the neighborhood on the other

47:51side of the river since 1978.

47:54It's been a joy to live there.

47:56It's peaceful. It's quiet.

48:00Recently, I've noticed SUVs

48:03driving through our

48:04neighborhood there, driven by

48:07teenagers who are going to be

48:09Westlake people. I mean, going

48:11to be at the school that's

48:12going in on the corner. We're

48:14also already facing that

48:15traffic in our neighborhood.

48:18I'm concerned about this

48:20project because there's no

48:23access to it other than a right

48:24turn into it. No one can turn

48:27left from Ventura Boulevard

48:28into the project. That's going

48:31to put pressure of cars through

48:32my neighborhood. We don't want

48:35that. It's it's going to be

48:38horrendous for us. You need to

48:40work on that. Otherwise, I

48:42think it's a great project. I

48:45understand it's necessary for

48:47to have more housing, but this

48:50is a big cost. Thank you. Thank

48:54you very much. Next speaker.

48:57Welcome. Hello. My name is

49:01Stephanie Handsome. I live in

49:03Studio City, west of Present

49:04Neighborhood. I have to say

49:06that I have been reluctant

49:07these last seven years with all

49:09these development changes

49:10happening in the neighborhood.

49:11It breaks my heart to miss all

49:13these things, but I know that

49:14it's inevitable. So that being

49:16said, I'm going to miss

49:17Carney's. I'm going to miss

49:19pins. I already miss Jerry's.

49:21I'm going to miss my coffee

49:22being my local coffee bean. And

49:24I'm going to miss staples. Okay,

49:26so that was yesteryear. It's

49:29over for us. That being said,

49:31I'm super grateful for the

49:33developer, Mr. Denton. He

49:35actually cares about what we

49:37think, and I think he will make

49:38the right choices. He's already

49:40just initiated having more

49:42parking spaces that's required,

49:44and I really wish the other

49:46developers in our zip code

49:47would do the same. So I am

49:49excited there will be parking.

49:51I am excited that I will come

49:52to love this place because it

49:54has so much to offer. Thank you.

49:58Thank you. Next speaker.

50:00Welcome. Hi, my name is Nicole

50:03Waldman. I'm actually here on

50:04behalf of Scott Mandel, who's

50:05the ad hoc committee chair for

50:07the Studio City Neighborhood

50:08Council. He was concerned

50:10because the neighborhood impact

50:11statement had not been

50:12submitted on the record. So I

50:14went ahead and submitted that

50:15today. But just to let you know,

50:17I'm really pleased to be here.

50:18We worked really hard together

50:19to come up with a plan that

50:21creates a river opportunity and

50:23really improves the river with

50:24native plantings, not with palm

50:26trees, but with really growing

50:28it and making it accessible to

50:29people, making it a transit way,

50:30making it bike accessible.

50:32We're really excited about

50:33having worked together to

50:34create a really, really cool

50:36opportunity and future for this

50:37part of Cedillo City. So thank

50:38you very much. Thank you. Next

50:43speaker, there are no more

50:45speakers. Okay. So anyone else

50:47wish to speak to this? These

50:49items, seeing no other speakers

50:50on the queue, public comment on

50:51these items are closed. We'll

50:54now move to committee

50:55discussion. And we'll start

50:56with council member whose

50:59district this project is in.

51:00Councilwoman Raman, well, thank

51:02you so much for the opportunity

51:03to comment on this. As was

51:06stated by the applicant, this

51:09project, which is at the site

51:11of a bed, Bath and Beyond and a

51:14staples and the bowling alley

51:16is using incentives that are

51:18available under the State

51:19Density Bonus Law and Assembly

51:21Bill 130, with no other

51:23additional incentives or

51:24waivers being requested that

51:27would require additional

51:28discretionary review, and the

51:30project qualifies for a CEQA

51:32exemption under state

51:33guidelines. That being said, as

51:36always, we're very, very

51:37grateful for everyone in the

51:38Studio City community who has

51:40come forward to engage on the

51:42project, to push for the kind

51:44of planting that will, you know,

51:47prioritize native plants that

51:49will push for access to the

51:51river, that can make it a

51:52benefit to the community to

51:55make sure that we're investing

51:56in street safety improvements

51:58that can make it safer for

52:00pedestrians, for cyclists, and

52:01for cars and any other users of

52:04Ventura Boulevard. We've seen

52:07we read some of the conditions

52:09already that are planning

52:12director from our office read

52:14out. But as long as these

52:17conditions are being honored,

52:20our office is in support of

52:22this going forward and for a

52:24denial of these appeals,

52:26provided these other conditions

52:27are included. Thank you all so

52:30much. And just want to thank

52:31everyone who's here for their

52:32engagement. I know this was an

52:34enormous, enormous amount of

52:36time and hours spent by the

52:38neighborhood council, by the

52:41developer and by the planning

52:44department. And I think what

52:46emerged from this is better

52:48than what we started with. And

52:50I hope that the project can be

52:52a benefit for the community. I

52:54also just want to underscore, I

52:55know there's a number of

52:56projects that are planned for

52:58this area, with a lot of new

52:59units being added, and I am

53:01very, very aware of the fact

53:03that we need to sequence those

53:05projects, make sure that we're

53:06not overwhelming the area with

53:08construction trucks and the

53:12like. And our office is deeply

53:15aware of the timelines and the

53:18impacts, and will continue to

53:19engage with you to make sure

53:21that happens. So thank you,

53:23chairperson Blumenfield, for

53:25giving me an opportunity to

53:26speak, and I look forward to

53:27any other discussions from

53:29committee members, colleagues,

53:31any other comments? Questions?

53:35I'll just say, I mean, I like

53:37many of you here. You know, I

53:39miss the Jerry's. I had many,

53:41many a great meal and

53:42conversation there and miss

53:45playing Miss bowling in the

53:46bowling alley. But I'm also

53:48excited for what's what's to

53:50come. I'm a big believer in the

53:51LA River and seeing the

53:53revitalization along that river

53:55and the possibilities are

53:57exciting. So with that, I'm

53:59going to recommend on item 15

54:02that we deny the appeals filed

54:04by Amy Minter on behalf of the

54:06Studio City Residents

54:07Association and save LA River

54:09Open space, and also deny the

54:12appeals by Maureen King and

54:13thereby sustain the City

54:14Planning Commission's approval

54:16of the environmental clearance,

54:17a statutory exemption from CEQA

54:18and approval of a two phase

54:20vesting. Tentative track map

54:22for the merger and subdivision

54:24into two ground lots, three

54:26residential airspace lots, five

54:27commercial airspace, lots,

54:29eight parking airspace, lots

54:30and a haul route approved for

54:32the construction, use and

54:33maintenance of a mixed use

54:34development comprised of 814

54:36residential units, 75,968ft■!S f

54:39restaurant uses for the

54:40property, located at

54:4412501-12665 West Ventura

54:45Boulevard, subject to the

54:46modified conditions of approval

54:48and adoption of project

54:49findings, and be to modify

54:51conditions S3I3 and add

54:55condition of approval to the

54:56subject Letter of Determination

54:58prior to recordation of the

54:59final map, the applicant shall

55:01demonstrate compliance with the

55:02Public Resources Code, section

55:044290 and its implementing

55:06regulations in title 14,

55:08Division 1.5. Chapter seven

55:09subdivision two, which is the

55:10state Minimum Fire Safe

55:13Regulations and chapter seven

55:14of the California Building Code,

55:15as recommended by the Planning

55:16Department report dated October

55:175th, 2026 and see. To determine,

55:21based on the whole of the

55:22administrative record, the

55:23project is exempt from CEQA

55:24pursuant to Public Resources

55:25section 21080.66 and for 16 to

55:30deny the appeal filed by Amy

55:31Minter and on behalf of Studio

55:33City Residents Association and

55:34Save La River open space and

55:35thereby sustain the City

55:37Planning Commission's approval

55:38of the environmental clearance,

55:39a statutory exemption from CEQA

55:40and approvals of one project

55:42review to a specific plan.

55:44Project compliance for the

55:45demolition and removal of all

55:47existing structures from the

55:48project site and the

55:49construction of mixed use

55:50development. Consisting of 814

55:52residential units and 75,960ft■S

55:54of restaurant uses of property.

55:56Located at 12501-12665 West

55:58Ventura Boulevard. Subject to

56:00the conditions of approval and

56:01adoption of the project

56:02findings and be determined

56:04based on the whole of the

56:05administrative record that the

56:06project is statutorily exempt

56:07from CEQA pursuant to

56:08California Public Resources

56:10Section 21080.66. That and the

56:15and the additional amendments

56:18that were read into the record

56:19by Councilwoman Raman staff

56:21prior to public comment. And if

56:23we before we vote, if I could

56:25just confirm for the record

56:27that planning is including the

56:29Parkway that was mentioned as

56:32by one of the commenters in

56:34their final determination,

56:37seeing none, I would just

56:39confirm orally for the record.

56:41Yes. Thank you very much. Thank

56:43you for that additional

56:44confirmation. Okay. Thank you.

56:45Okay. With that and seeing no

56:46other comments from the

56:48committee, let's call the roll.

56:51Blumenfield Blumenfield I Raman.

56:54Yes, yes. Lee I Nazarian five

57:01eyes. And for number 15, the

57:03appeals are denied. And for

57:05number 16, the appeal is denied.

57:09Okay, great. Thank you. That

57:10takes us now back to 11, which

57:13was continued. But I've been

57:16told that we should see if

57:17anyone is here for public

57:18comment on 11 since it was

57:20continued the last moment. If

57:21you're here for public comment

57:22on 11, we're going to give you

57:24a chance to say something. So

57:25please, if anyone is here to

57:27comment on public on item 11,

57:28please come forward now. Going

57:33once, item 11, going twice.

57:37Okay. Public comment going

57:39three times. Public comment is

57:40closed on item 11. That item

57:42was continued. So that takes us

57:45next to what was next. 12 I

57:49believe if you could read 12

57:50into the record please. Item 12

57:55consists of three reports, one

57:56from the Planning department, a

57:59second from the Planning

58:00Department, Bureau of

58:02Engineering, and the Department

58:03of Transportation. And then

58:05finally, a joint report from

58:07the Planning Department and

58:09transportation. And these all

58:11relate to the Public access

58:13study and mitigation measures

58:14for the Venice Coastal Zone,

58:17Prepared to assist al fresco

58:19operators with their coastal

58:20development applications and

58:22maintaining access to the

58:23coastal zone. Okay, so we will

58:28start with. Well, I guess we'll

58:33start with the if there's a

58:34presentation and then we'll

58:35move to public comment and then

58:37committee discussion. So if

58:38you'd like to present on this

58:39item. Yes. Council member. Okay.

58:44Good afternoon, Council members.

58:46My name is Roberta Luna with

58:48City Planning. And item 12 is

58:49in reference to three separate

58:51reports related to the alfresco

58:53outdoor dining program in the

58:55Venice Coastal Zone. To provide

58:57some brief context, the city

58:59initiated a temporary alfresco

59:01program in 2020 as an emergency

59:03lifeline for restaurants during

59:04the Covid 19 pandemic. In 2023,

59:08the city adopted the permanent

59:10Alfresco Ordinance, which

59:11requires operators to obtain a

59:13valid city permit in order to

59:15transition to the permanent

59:16alfresco program. However,

59:18operators in the Venice Coastal

59:19Zone are subject to more

59:21stringent permitting process

59:22under the California Coastal

59:24Act that requires Discretionary

59:26Coastal Development Permit or

59:27CTP, and must demonstrate that

59:29the project maintains public

59:30access to the coast. The

59:33reports before you today

59:35summarize the technical study

59:36that could assist up to 77

59:38individual alfresco operators

59:40in Venice in obtaining the

59:41necessary CTP approval, which

59:43includes that the project

59:44maintains public access to the

59:45coast. This is purely a data

59:48based informational study, and

59:49the report does not recommend

59:51any policy changes or

59:52amendments to the zoning code

59:53at this time. In 2025, two

59:56joint reports from planning,

59:59Department of Transportation

1:00:00and Bureau of Engineering dated

1:00:03May 2025 and November 2025 were

1:00:05prepared, recommending that the

1:00:07city continue to provide

1:00:08assistance to individual

1:00:09alfresco operators and the

1:00:11Venice Coastal Zone through fee

1:00:12subsidies and preparation of a

1:00:14public access and parking study,

1:00:16instead of through a

1:00:18Programmatic Coastal

1:00:19development permit or PCP. The

1:00:22council authorized and funded

1:00:23the task order solicitation to

1:00:25prepare the study in 2024

1:00:26through council files

1:00:3120-1075-S5 and 24-0879. A city

1:00:37led study would assist

1:00:39individual operators

1:00:40transitioning to the permanent

1:00:41alfresco program by relieving

1:00:42them from having to prepare

1:00:43their own studies, as well as

1:00:45providing a broader study area

1:00:46for the data collection and

1:00:48analysis. That brings us to the

1:00:51final report before you today,

1:00:53which is a joint report from

1:00:54planning and DOT dated August

1:00:5612th, 2026, that summarizes the

1:00:58Venice Public Access, Mobility

1:01:00and Parking study provided as

1:01:02exhibit A and the Venice

1:01:03Mitigation Measures

1:01:04Implementation Plan, provided

1:01:06as exhibit B, prepared by

1:01:07Walker Consultants. The joint

1:01:10report highlights findings and

1:01:11recommendations to maintain

1:01:12public access to the Venice

1:01:14Coastal Zone as a result of the

1:01:15alfresco program in conformance

1:01:17with the California Coastal Act.

1:01:20The study concluded that

1:01:21overall access to the Venice

1:01:22Coastal Zone has been

1:01:24maintained, despite some

1:01:25operators utilizing the

1:01:26temporary alfresco program to

1:01:27convert parking spaces into

1:01:28outdoor dining areas. As such,

1:01:31the demand generated by the

1:01:32increased footprint of alfresco

1:01:34operators has seemingly

1:01:35absorbed by the has been

1:01:37seemingly absorbed by the

1:01:37existing parking supply in the

1:01:39area, while Venice as a whole

1:01:41experience little to no impact,

1:01:42the study demonstrated that the

1:01:44parking demand among study

1:01:46subareas and the fiscal

1:01:48footprint varied widely among

1:01:49operators. Although the study

1:01:52demonstrated that the temporary

1:01:53program did not result in a

1:01:54cumulative impact to public

1:01:56coastal access, city staff must

1:01:59nonetheless conduct a case by

1:02:00case review in accordance with

1:02:01the California Coastal Act, to

1:02:03identify any potential impacts

1:02:05when reviewing CDP applications

1:02:06for the permanent program. The

1:02:09Venice Mitigation Measures

1:02:10Implementation Plan offers a

1:02:12framework of alfresco operator

1:02:13led strategies in order to

1:02:15address such impacts based on

1:02:17the number and type of parking

1:02:19spaces displaced by the project.

1:02:21This model underscores

1:02:23individual operator's

1:02:24responsibility to maintain

1:02:24public coastal access while

1:02:27considering the existing

1:02:28mobility patterns in Venice.

1:02:30Upon receipt by the City

1:02:32Council, city departments will

1:02:33be able to incorporate these

1:02:35mitigation measures in the

1:02:36review and approval of

1:02:37individual CDP applications and

1:02:39support alfresco operators in

1:02:41transitioning to the permanent

1:02:42alfresco program. While the

1:02:45main intent of the study is to

1:02:47provide operator led mitigation

1:02:48measures to maintain coastal

1:02:49access, travel behavior within

1:02:51and to the Venice Coastal Zone

1:02:53indicates that there are there

1:02:54may be opportunities to expand

1:02:57public access through long term,

1:02:58city led mobility options that

1:03:00could further enhance public

1:03:01access to the Venice Coastal

1:03:02Zone. As resources and funding

1:03:04become available. Many of these

1:03:06initiatives coincide and would

1:03:07offer direct implementation of

1:03:10several mobility plan goals. To

1:03:13conclude, staff recommend that

1:03:14the City Council receive and

1:03:16file the two joint reports

1:03:17dated May 28th, 2025 and

1:03:21November 26th, 2025. Receive

1:03:23and file the joint report dated

1:03:25August 20th, 2026, along with

1:03:27his exhibits, to serve as

1:03:29guidance for the Department of

1:03:30City Planning, any applicable

1:03:31city departments, and offer

1:03:33school operators in the Venice

1:03:35Coastal Zone to mitigate any

1:03:36impacts to public access to the

1:03:38coast and and instruct DOT

1:03:41planning and any other

1:03:42applicable departments to use

1:03:44this report and its exhibits to

1:03:45inform ongoing efforts to

1:03:47expand public access to the

1:03:48coast, including, but not

1:03:49limited to the LA now on demand

1:03:51Shared Ride Service Council

1:03:53file 19-1519 planning and

1:03:57transportation staff are

1:03:58available for any questions.

1:03:59Thank you. Great. Thank you.

1:04:00Before we do that, are there

1:04:01any members of the public who

1:04:03wish to speak to this item item

1:04:0412? If so, please come forward.

1:04:24Welcome. Thank you. I'm Robin

1:04:27Rudacille speaking for the

1:04:28Venice Neighborhood Council. To

1:04:29request a continuance for this

1:04:31item. The city charter requires

1:04:34neighborhood councils shall

1:04:36receive notice and a reasonable

1:04:37opportunity to provide input

1:04:39before City Council or Council

1:04:41committee decisions. Yet

1:04:42neither city planning LADOT nor

1:04:45city 11 informed the Venice

1:04:47Neighborhood Council before

1:04:48this study advanced to plumb.

1:04:50For months, two VNC committees

1:04:52and our president repeatedly

1:04:53requested updates. We were

1:04:55assured we would be informed

1:04:56when the study was completed,

1:04:58but we were not. The absence of

1:05:00any neighborhood council

1:05:02community impact statement

1:05:04speaks volumes. There were no

1:05:06public comments in the council

1:05:08file for over two years, until

1:05:10my two comments last night. The

1:05:13study itself fails because it

1:05:15does not adequately consider

1:05:18cumulative impacts cumulative

1:05:20parking impacts, including the

1:05:22effects of the current projects

1:05:24of any current projects, and

1:05:26probable future projects. This

1:05:28is one of Venice's most

1:05:30critical issues. Our VNC

1:05:32president has formally

1:05:33requested a continuance, and we

1:05:35urge plum to continue this item

1:05:37until meaningful outreach and

1:05:39consultation with the VNC have

1:05:41occurred. And please read my

1:05:43detailed letter in the Council

1:05:44file which has a number of

1:05:46concerns detailed. Thank you,

1:05:49thank you. Next speaker. Hello,

1:05:56my name is Kenya Lee and I live

1:05:58in the city of Venice. I'm

1:05:59deeply concerned that this

1:06:01study concludes Venice can

1:06:03accommodate additional alfresco

1:06:05dining without compromising

1:06:07coastal access. But what

1:06:11happens when parking supply and

1:06:13demand change? A b 2097

1:06:16eliminates parking requirements

1:06:18for many new developments.

1:06:20Where is the quality?

1:06:22Quantitative data analysis of

1:06:25its cumulative effects? Where

1:06:27is the analysis of additional

1:06:29el fresco applications?

1:06:31Following the program's

1:06:33extension, the cumulative

1:06:35impact was not properly

1:06:37considered. Without that

1:06:39analysis, the city cannot

1:06:41conclude coastal access to be

1:06:44protected. The Venice

1:06:45Neighborhood Council wasn't

1:06:47even informed when this study

1:06:49was completed. Despite city

1:06:51charter requirements for notice

1:06:53and a reasonable opportunity

1:06:56for input before council

1:06:58committee decisions. Please

1:07:00continue this item for

1:07:02additional analysis. Thank you,

1:07:05thank you. Is there anyone else

1:07:07here to speak to item 12 for

1:07:10public comment? Okay. Seeing no

1:07:13other members of the public

1:07:14come forward, then public

1:07:17comment on this item is closed,

1:07:19but we'll move to Council

1:07:20member parks staff wish to

1:07:22speak to it. Good afternoon,

1:07:36Council district 11. I just

1:07:37want to take a moment to thank

1:07:39planning staff for all their

1:07:40work on this study. One of the

1:07:42main reasons we initiated this

1:07:43effort was to help our

1:07:45restaurants in the Venice

1:07:46Coastal Zone navigate the

1:07:47permitting process for alfresco

1:07:48dining. And as we know,

1:07:50businesses in the coastal zone

1:07:51face additional requirements

1:07:52under the Coastal Act, and this

1:07:54can significantly add cost and

1:07:56time to an already complicated

1:07:58process. With the city now

1:08:00complete, we have a mitigation

1:08:02program in place that will help

1:08:03streamline that process and

1:08:04make it easier for restaurants

1:08:06to obtain their coastal

1:08:07development permits. So I

1:08:09especially want to thank Artie

1:08:10Varma, Solomon Kerry, Mary Cho,

1:08:14Bonnie Kim, Roberto, Roberto

1:08:15Luna, and many other staff

1:08:17members who contributed to this

1:08:19effort. We really appreciate

1:08:20your dedication and your work

1:08:22to help our small businesses.

1:08:23Thank you. Thank you. Okay,

1:08:32we'll move to committee

1:08:33discussion. And I guess I'll

1:08:36start with just asking the

1:08:37department if you wish to

1:08:38respond to any of the comments

1:08:40that the public made, whether

1:08:41neighborhood council issue or

1:08:44the other requirements issues,

1:08:47please. Yes, with planning for

1:08:49the record. Thank you.

1:08:51Neighborhood Council members to

1:08:53for providing comments. Staff

1:08:55would like to clarify that this

1:08:57is a very fact based, research

1:09:01based and data driven

1:09:03informational documents and

1:09:05study that does not involve any

1:09:07policy changes or

1:09:08recommendations to any code

1:09:10amendment ordinances. So we did

1:09:13not involve we did not

1:09:15circulate the study prior to

1:09:18transmitting to the report to

1:09:20the council file. However, our

1:09:23team did conduct courtesy

1:09:25outreach to the neighborhood

1:09:27council two times in 2025 to

1:09:30inform them about our efforts

1:09:31to prepare the study, along

1:09:34with our consultants, and

1:09:35provide mitigation measures to

1:09:38support the individual alfresco

1:09:40operators in the Venice area so

1:09:42that they can move forward with

1:09:44submitting the application and

1:09:46continue to operate legally in

1:09:48the Venice area. Thank you,

1:09:50thank you. Then I guess I just

1:09:53want to say, I mean, I want to

1:09:55thank the planning department,

1:09:56BOE and DOT for this report.

1:09:58The alfresco program has been a

1:10:00really important tool for the

1:10:01Los Angeles restaurants have

1:10:02been a big supporter of the

1:10:03tool. It's important that it be

1:10:05available for restaurants in

1:10:07Venice Coastal Zone. Having

1:10:09said that and putting that out

1:10:11there, to me, it's beyond

1:10:12frustrating that city

1:10:13departments primarily

1:10:15responsible for implementing

1:10:16our mobility plan, seem not to

1:10:19heed that plan. In the report

1:10:21we have table two and three of

1:10:23the joint report includes a

1:10:24potential list of potential

1:10:25city led mitigation strategies

1:10:26to reduce the need for parking

1:10:28in the Venice Coastal Zone, but

1:10:30they don't include implementing

1:10:32the mobility plans. Active

1:10:33transportation networks such as

1:10:35bike lanes and traffic from

1:10:36local streets. To me, that's

1:10:39that's a big mistake. That's

1:10:40unacceptable. The reason people

1:10:41don't ride their bikes to and

1:10:43within Venice is not because

1:10:44it's hard to park a bike. It's

1:10:47because we make bicyclists

1:10:48travel in terror. The reason we

1:10:51haven't made progress in

1:10:53traffic fatalities or serious

1:10:54injuries in Los Angeles during

1:10:56the past decade is because we

1:10:57have. We have collectively

1:10:59refused to take the mobility

1:11:00plan seriously enough. The

1:11:02voters adopted measure HLA. The

1:11:04city's adopted a policy of

1:11:06massive resistance, it seems,

1:11:08and refused to fund city

1:11:09repairs. If we're required to

1:11:11include any safety measures.

1:11:12Look, I'm not holding this

1:11:14measure up. I just thought we

1:11:17need to call it out and we need

1:11:19to do better as a city. And I

1:11:21just wanted to vent about that

1:11:22for a little bit. But I'm still

1:11:24going to recommend that we move

1:11:25forward. Colleagues, any other

1:11:26comments or questions? Seeing

1:11:30no other comments or questions.

1:11:31Nobody else wanting to vent

1:11:33just out there. Then we'll call

1:11:35the roll, please.

1:11:40Recommendations. I guess I

1:11:41should give you the

1:11:42recommendations. Okay. The

1:11:43recommendation would be to note

1:11:44it's it's actually was already

1:11:45read by the staff earlier, what

1:11:47they were asking for, which is

1:11:48the same thing, but I guess I

1:11:50need to read it again. So note

1:11:52and file the planning

1:11:53Department's report dated May

1:11:5428th, 2025 and the corrected

1:11:55joint report for the Planning

1:11:56Department. Bureau of

1:11:57engineering. Department of

1:11:58Transportation dated November

1:11:5926th, 2025, and please adopt

1:12:00recommendations from the Joint

1:12:01Report for DCP and DOT dated

1:12:03August 12th, 2026 to 1. Receive

1:12:06and file this report, along

1:12:07with its exhibits, to serve as

1:12:09guidance to DCP and applicable

1:12:11city departments and alfresco

1:12:12operators in the Venice Coastal

1:12:13Zone to mitigate any impacts to

1:12:15public access to the coast. And

1:12:17two to instruct Dot DCP and any

1:12:19other applicable departments to

1:12:21use this report and its

1:12:22exhibits to inform ongoing

1:12:24efforts to expand public access

1:12:25to the coast, including, but

1:12:27not limited to the LA now on

1:12:29demand Shared Ride Service

1:12:32Council File 19-1519. Let's

1:12:35call the roll Blumenfield one

1:12:37second before calling the roll.

1:12:39Pull that back a second.

1:12:40Councilmember has an additional

1:12:41question. Yes, sorry about that.

1:12:44I have a couple questions. One

1:12:46is what mitigation measures are

1:12:48currently being recommended for

1:12:50alfresco operators? Thank you

1:12:55for the question. Council

1:12:57Member for the record. So there

1:12:59are two sets of mitigation

1:13:01measures being recommended as

1:13:02part of the study. One set is

1:13:04the immediate short term

1:13:07operator led mitigation

1:13:09measures that the individual

1:13:11alfresco operators can

1:13:13implement. Once the CDP is

1:13:15approved with the incorporation

1:13:16of those measures, and they

1:13:18include mobility and

1:13:21micromobility related

1:13:22implementation mitigation

1:13:24measures, including providing

1:13:25short term and. Yeah. Okay,

1:13:32sorry, providing employee

1:13:35incentives, including the

1:13:36cycling incentive program,

1:13:39providing a guaranteed ride

1:13:40home program, providing

1:13:43mobility wallet to subsidize

1:13:45the use of transit. It also

1:13:48provides parking management and

1:13:51operations strategies, which

1:13:52include carpool and vanpool

1:13:54matching support, securing

1:13:57bicycle parking for their

1:13:58employees. It also involves

1:14:01customer incentives by

1:14:02providing incentives for non

1:14:04drive trips, securing bicycle

1:14:07parking for the customers and

1:14:09also enhancing communications,

1:14:11including, you know, employer

1:14:13communications to their staff

1:14:14and customers and also, you

1:14:17know, social media messaging,

1:14:19encouraging the use of tdms. So

1:14:21those are operator led

1:14:23strategies that can be

1:14:26incorporated into the CDP

1:14:28application individually. And

1:14:31so just so I'm clear, when you

1:14:33say operator LED, you mean the

1:14:34business themselves incurs all

1:14:36these costs to provide all

1:14:39these services to their

1:14:40customer? Yes. That's correct.

1:14:42So the purpose of the study was

1:14:44to provide, you know, use the

1:14:48funding authorized by the City

1:14:50Council to prepare a study with

1:14:54our expert consultant hired by

1:14:56the city to provide the data

1:14:59sets required to analyze

1:15:01parking demand and supply, and

1:15:03also provide these mitigation

1:15:06measures that these individual

1:15:08operators can incorporate when

1:15:10they submit an application for

1:15:11the coastal development permit

1:15:13that's necessary in order for

1:15:15them to continue to operate

1:15:17legally. And this actually,

1:15:19although, you know, the cost

1:15:21aspect will be on the

1:15:23individual operators to

1:15:24implement overall, we believe

1:15:26it's still a cost savings

1:15:28because without this study or

1:15:30the mitigation toolkit provided

1:15:32by the city, individual

1:15:34operators will have to actually

1:15:36spend money out of their pocket

1:15:37in order to prepare this type

1:15:39of study and provide mitigation

1:15:41measures themselves, and

1:15:42recommend that to the city. For

1:15:46consideration of the CDP

1:15:48application. I just find it I

1:15:50mean, I have a lot of alfresco

1:15:53operators that said, the best

1:15:55alfresco program was during

1:15:58Covid when people just had to

1:16:00apply, and then we made it even

1:16:03harder for people to have

1:16:05alfresco programs. I'm sure

1:16:06many of you know Wolf and Crane,

1:16:08which is in Little Tokyo, it's

1:16:10costing them over $20,000 to

1:16:12get an al fresco approval for

1:16:14something that they built

1:16:15during Covid. And even

1:16:17inspectors going to their site

1:16:18and saying, we can't approve

1:16:19this. But if you take the

1:16:21string lights down and we come

1:16:22back and then you can put it up

1:16:24after, we'll approve it. And if

1:16:26our systems are not designed to

1:16:27actually work for the purpose

1:16:28at which we're trying to

1:16:30actually effectuate, then why

1:16:31are we even doing it in the

1:16:32first place? And so I think in

1:16:35this economy, where we're

1:16:36asking small businesses to take

1:16:38on a lot more work, what this

1:16:40sounds like is it's going to be

1:16:41too expensive for them to

1:16:43either do a study or have to

1:16:45enlist a bicycle fleet just so

1:16:47people can come to their site.

1:16:49And so with that being said, I

1:16:51mean, I guess this report just

1:16:54exposes that businesses may not

1:16:56want to be on that coast

1:16:58because it's going to be in

1:16:59this location as prime as it is,

1:17:02because it's going to be even

1:17:03more expensive. And so I just

1:17:06wish we would have more

1:17:09solutions for them as we

1:17:12consider that. I have a second

1:17:14question. How many Venice

1:17:15operators are at risk of losing

1:17:17alfresco seating because of

1:17:19coastal development permit or

1:17:20parking? Public access

1:17:22requirements? Graham Rossmoor

1:17:24with the Department of

1:17:25Transportation. I just want to

1:17:26clarify on your first question

1:17:27that what we're discussing here

1:17:29in this report only applies to

1:17:31the coastal region in Venice.

1:17:33This wouldn't apply to your

1:17:34district, and it's also partly

1:17:37the state's burden. And that's

1:17:38what the coastal development

1:17:39permit. This isn't directly

1:17:41coming from the city saying

1:17:42that businesses must apply for

1:17:43CDP. That's coming from the

1:17:45state and the coastal area.

1:17:46Yeah, I appreciate that. But I

1:17:48think the fact still remains

1:17:50that I think we can all agree

1:17:51upon is that alfresco program

1:17:54writ large is harder than it

1:17:57was before, and that small

1:17:59business businesses generally

1:18:00are struggling through that

1:18:02process. Would you agree?

1:18:04Regardless of whether they're

1:18:05on the coast or not, I would

1:18:07agree. I would agree that

1:18:08things have changed since 2020.

1:18:11So I guess my second question

1:18:13is how many Venice operators

1:18:14are at risk of losing alfresco

1:18:16seating because of coastal

1:18:17development permit and public

1:18:20access requirements? I can

1:18:22respond on that to, again,

1:18:23Graham Rossmore with the

1:18:24Department of Transportation.

1:18:26Currently, as of today, there

1:18:27are 39 of the total 117

1:18:30businesses who have already

1:18:31gotten their permanent programs.

1:18:33And then there's 18 of those,

1:18:35which in the coastal zone. So

1:18:37we're seeing businesses apply.

1:18:38We on the DOT side also only

1:18:40oversee the on street parking

1:18:43spaces. And so the majority of

1:18:44these businesses are operating

1:18:47in their off street private lot.

1:18:48So that's under the Department

1:18:49of Building and Safety. So

1:18:50unfortunately we can't answer

1:18:52to that. But I will say that

1:18:53it's about 33% currently that

1:18:55have applied for their

1:18:56permanent permits and are on

1:18:57the path to a CDP. Okay. And is

1:19:01LEDBS here or to talk about the.

1:19:05No. Okay. We just have really

1:19:08great weather all year round

1:19:09and a beautiful coastline. And

1:19:11I know it's a constitutional

1:19:12right to have access to the

1:19:14beaches and that's something

1:19:15we're working on. But I think

1:19:17if that's one of our prime real

1:19:19estate assets, how we balance

1:19:21the two, which I acknowledge is

1:19:22a really difficult thing that

1:19:24the departments are tasked with.

1:19:26I guess my last question is

1:19:28just hearing from public

1:19:29comment and the response about

1:19:30community engagement. Based on

1:19:32your statements, it sounded

1:19:33like the last time they were

1:19:35engaged was in 2025. Was

1:19:37anybody notified about this?

1:19:40It's now October and it's 2026.

1:19:42So just wanted to follow up on,

1:19:45you know, whether they were

1:19:46outreach to in this calendar

1:19:48year. Right. For the record, I

1:19:52believe once the the report is

1:19:54transmitted to the council file,

1:19:56the neighborhood council does

1:19:57get notified of the transmittal

1:20:00documents, but we can certainly

1:20:02follow up with the neighborhood

1:20:04council to provide all the

1:20:05information as needed to

1:20:07explain the results of the

1:20:09study, as well as the

1:20:10mitigation measures that are

1:20:12recommended in the exhibits.

1:20:14Okay, so outside of the

1:20:15uploading of the document to

1:20:16the council file, there was no

1:20:19separate outreach conducted.

1:20:26Shauna, can I just clarify to

1:20:30the lack of outreach is also

1:20:31because there isn't a decision

1:20:33today. It's a report. Go ahead.

1:20:38Staff was going to add anything.

1:20:40Oh yeah. Sorry, Bonnie. Kim,

1:20:41for the record, with planning,

1:20:43we did have some email

1:20:45communications earlier. So this

1:20:46would be spring 2026. But yes,

1:20:49the intent was always to

1:20:50schedule a follow up once the

1:20:51report was in the record so

1:20:53that there is something, you

1:20:54know, publicly available to

1:20:56discuss. Again, as Shauna noted,

1:20:57since it was not a policy

1:20:58document, the during the during

1:21:00the process of drafting the

1:21:02report itself and the study

1:21:05that the typical Planning's

1:21:07typical level of community

1:21:09involvement was not required.

1:21:11And I'll just add if. If it

1:21:12were to occur that the report

1:21:14was used as a reference for

1:21:16future policy that would

1:21:18include a legislative act and

1:21:19certainly include public

1:21:20outreach as part of that. Yes.

1:21:23And Councilmember, to further

1:21:25add to that, as these

1:21:27individual operators submit

1:21:29their coastal development

1:21:30permit applications to our

1:21:32implementation staff, there is

1:21:33a public hearing process

1:21:36involved. And so the

1:21:37neighborhood council members,

1:21:38as well as the public members,

1:21:40will have an opportunity to

1:21:41review the types of mitigation

1:21:43measures that are incorporated

1:21:44into the project and provide

1:21:47comments. And they're not

1:21:48locked into those mitigation

1:21:50measures per se, until the

1:21:51approval is issued. So there

1:21:53can be flexibility in terms of

1:21:55what mitigation measures are

1:21:57incorporated. Okay. I just want

1:21:59to make sure the record

1:22:00reflects that in this calendar

1:22:02year, the city has done has

1:22:04communicated with, you know,

1:22:06the neighborhood regarding this

1:22:08issue. Oh, okay. I have no

1:22:10further questions. Thank you.

1:22:11Chair. Any other questions or

1:22:13comments from committee members?

1:22:16Okay, then let's call the roll.

1:22:19Blumenfield. Blumenfield. Aye.

1:22:20Raman. Absent. Yes. Lee. Aye.

1:22:26Nazaryan for four ayes. And

1:22:29this item is a is approved.

1:22:31Great. Thank you so much. That

1:22:33takes us next to item 17. Thank

1:22:35you all. Item 17 is an appeal

1:22:38regarding a mixed use building

1:22:39on Sunset Boulevard in

1:22:40Hollywood. If you could read

1:22:41that into the record and we'll

1:22:43ask. Planning to come forward?

1:22:45Yes, chair. The item 17

1:22:48consists of the categorical

1:22:50exemption, a report from the

1:22:52Planning department, and an

1:22:54appeal filed by Emerson College,

1:22:55Los Angeles, against the

1:22:58determination of the Planning

1:23:00Department and in approving a

1:23:02modification of entitlements.

1:23:07Okay. We'll get the planning

1:23:10report then. The appellant

1:23:13applicant. Go ahead. Good

1:23:16afternoon, Council members

1:23:17Michelle Carter with LA City

1:23:19Planning. Item number 17 is an

1:23:22appeal of the director's

1:23:24determination on behalf of the

1:23:25City Planning Commission for

1:23:27the approval of a modification

1:23:28of entitlement and a class one

1:23:31categorical exemption to a

1:23:33previously approved housing

1:23:34development project in Council

1:23:35District 13. The project

1:23:38involves modification of

1:23:40conditions number one and seven

1:23:42e to allow the reduction of the

1:23:45required minimum floor to floor

1:23:47height at all above grade

1:23:48parking levels from 11ft to

1:23:5110ft. The modification does not

1:23:54authorize an additional

1:23:55building story, additional

1:23:57dwelling units or additional

1:23:58floor area. An appeal of the

1:24:01determination was filed by

1:24:02Emerson College, as detailed in

1:24:05the appeal response letter

1:24:06dated October 8th, 2026, which

1:24:09is included in the council file.

1:24:11The project complied with all

1:24:13requirements under the Los

1:24:14Angeles Municipal Code and CEQA,

1:24:16and there is no substantial

1:24:18evidence that the project would

1:24:20result in a significant effect

1:24:21on the environment. Planning

1:24:24staff recommends that the Plum

1:24:25Committee and City Council deny

1:24:27the appeal and sustain the the

1:24:30determination on behalf of the

1:24:31City Planning Commission to

1:24:33approve the requested actions

1:24:34for the proposed project. That

1:24:36concludes my presentation. We

1:24:37are available for questions.

1:24:38Great. Thank you so much. We'll

1:24:41ask is the appellant Emerson

1:24:44College present to state their

1:24:46appeal? Please come forward.

1:24:51And then if the applicant is

1:24:52here, they can they can line up

1:24:54as well so that we're can move

1:24:56smoothly. So you'll have three

1:24:59minutes and the floor is yours

1:25:02when you're ready. Good

1:25:08afternoon, Chairman Blumenfield

1:25:10and council members. My name is

1:25:12Paola Ferrer. I'm executive

1:25:14director of government and

1:25:15community affairs at Emerson

1:25:17College. Emerson College is a

1:25:19private, not for profit higher

1:25:21education institution and a

1:25:23strong advocate for urban

1:25:25residential housing across our

1:25:26campuses in Boston and Los

1:25:29Angeles. We simply cannot house

1:25:31an entire campus community in

1:25:33dormitories alone, we depend on

1:25:34a growing, accessible housing

1:25:37supply for our faculty, staff

1:25:38and students who live and work

1:25:40here. We are not here to stall

1:25:43housing development or to

1:25:44litigate private view rights.

1:25:46The obstruction of our view was

1:25:48merely the initial trigger that

1:25:50exposed a far more concerning

1:25:52reality an unpermitted

1:25:55uninspected structural

1:25:57expansion. Directly across from

1:25:58our campus. We are here because

1:26:01of a fundamental safety issue.

1:26:03The developer constructed an

1:26:05entire eighth floor story.

1:26:07Without the approved structural

1:26:08building permits, the applicant

1:26:12frames this request as a

1:26:13routine one foot floor height

1:26:16modification. In reality, it is

1:26:18an attempt to retroactively

1:26:20legitimize illegal construction

1:26:22that has already occurred. Here

1:26:24are the facts. The only

1:26:26approved building permit on

1:26:28file is for a seven story

1:26:29building with 109 units. That

1:26:32developer built an eight story

1:26:34building with 141 units. The

1:26:37supplemental permit for that

1:26:38eighth story has never been

1:26:41issued and required clearances,

1:26:43including state mandated Cal

1:26:44OSHA safety clearances remain

1:26:47pending. City planning staff

1:26:49argued that building compliance

1:26:50is strictly an labs matter, but

1:26:53City Council enacts an oversees

1:26:55the administrative code that

1:26:57governs these departments. Your

1:26:59oversight role exists precisely

1:27:01to ensure inter-departmental

1:27:04siloing does not undermine

1:27:06public safety when

1:27:08jurisdictional boundaries

1:27:09prevent proper oversight. This

1:27:11committee has the explicit

1:27:13authority and the duty to

1:27:14bridge that gap. In March 2026,

1:27:18a we filed a formal complaint

1:27:21with LA DBS, which was referred

1:27:23to the inspection Bureau

1:27:24without resolution, bypassing

1:27:27engineering reviews. We

1:27:29respectfully urge plum, at a

1:27:31minimum, to hold this

1:27:32modification in abeyance

1:27:34demands that all unpermitted

1:27:36work immediately stop and defer

1:27:38a final vote until LA DBS

1:27:41completes a full, independent

1:27:42structural and seismic safety

1:27:44audit and verifies that all

1:27:46Commendatory Cal OSHA

1:27:48clearances are met. The City of

1:27:50Los Angeles does not want to

1:27:51see what happened with the

1:27:53Pfizer building in midtown

1:27:54Manhattan happen here. We

1:27:56support housing, but it must be

1:27:58done safely, legally and

1:28:00transparently. Thank you. Thank

1:28:02you very much. Okay, next we'll

1:28:04hear from the applicant. If you

1:28:08could exit to the right house.

1:28:11Right. Good afternoon, chair

1:28:13Blumenfeld Council members

1:28:15first want to address the

1:28:17appeal itself. Some of the

1:28:18language you heard today is

1:28:20outside the scope of the appeal.

1:28:21As stated by staff. The appeal

1:28:23followed all proper procedures

1:28:24and did not violate CEQA. There

1:28:26was no piecemealing. The

1:28:28existing structure is exempted

1:28:30as an existing facility to

1:28:32address some of the language

1:28:33that was used today.

1:28:35Uninspected no safety. All of

1:28:38that is a misnomer and

1:28:39incorrect. This is a project

1:28:41that started construction prior

1:28:42to the city's adoption of the

1:28:44Chip program. In fact, the

1:28:46specific project program used

1:28:47here was the mixed income

1:28:49incentive program. The

1:28:52developer was in the course of

1:28:53construction and applied to

1:28:55building and safety for the

1:28:56additional eighth floor. About

1:28:57a year and a half ago, the

1:28:59clearances for the building

1:29:00code issues structural items

1:29:02were cleared in July of 2025.

1:29:04What was pending was the

1:29:06process to approve the city's

1:29:08planning application under the

1:29:11program, which in and of itself

1:29:12is an administrative

1:29:14ministerial review also exempt

1:29:15from CEQA. Therefore, no

1:29:17piecemealing. We have deputy

1:29:19inspection records of the A

1:29:21story. We have OSHA clearances.

1:29:24OSHA only applies to. Is for

1:29:26fall protection and applies to

1:29:28any building over 36ft in

1:29:29height. It doesn't specify

1:29:31seven stories, eight stories.

1:29:32If you go above 36, you must

1:29:34comply with OSHA. We have that

1:29:36OSHA permit. I think what

1:29:37Emerson is referencing is the

1:29:39city's check the box clearance

1:29:41on the building permit that

1:29:43verifies that the OSHA permit

1:29:45has been obtained from Cal OSHA.

1:29:47What is pending now to issue

1:29:49the building permit, we have

1:29:50the approved that was approved

1:29:51a few months ago. What is

1:29:53pending now is a covenant from

1:29:55the housing department, which

1:29:56would then allow the issuance

1:29:57of the building permit. Again,

1:29:59none of this that I'm saying

1:30:00now is procedurally before you

1:30:02here, I just want to clarify

1:30:03for the record that allegations

1:30:05of a lack of safety, that

1:30:06things will fall, that the

1:30:08developer is bad. That's all a

1:30:10misnomer. This is the this is,

1:30:11in my view, an attempt to use a

1:30:14public process to protect

1:30:15private view rights, which

1:30:17Emerson has no no rights in

1:30:19California relative to views,

1:30:21unless there's a private

1:30:21agreement. We don't have that

1:30:23here. This is a project that

1:30:24will deliver 172 dwelling units,

1:30:2819 extremely low income

1:30:29dwelling units in a very, very,

1:30:32very tough housing market. In

1:30:33an economy where the LA times

1:30:34has reported, nobody's

1:30:36investing in LA. My clients are

1:30:38investing in LA. They have

1:30:40taken all the steps necessary

1:30:41to make sure this building is

1:30:43safe. The procedures and the

1:30:45processes have taken longer

1:30:46than we had hoped for. But at

1:30:47some point that permit will

1:30:49issue, and there are fears that

1:30:51this is a unsafe building will

1:30:54be resolved. But to the

1:30:55substance of the appeal,

1:30:57there's nothing in here that

1:30:58you should uphold. I think this

1:30:59appeal should be denied and let

1:31:01the developer proceed with

1:31:03building badly needed housing.

1:31:05Thank you. Okay. Are there any

1:31:13members of the public who wish

1:31:14to speak to this item? If so,

1:31:16please come forward. Members of

1:31:18the public. Okay, let the

1:31:22record reflect. Nobody is

1:31:23coming forward. So public

1:31:24comment is closed. Is there a

1:31:27representative from Mr.

1:31:29Martinez's office? Yes. Welcome.

1:31:39Good afternoon, Chair

1:31:40Blumenfield and honorable plum

1:31:41committee members. I'm Ted

1:31:43Walker, planning deputy for

1:31:44Council District 13 Council

1:31:46member Soto Martinez, speaking

1:31:47on item 17, an appeal of a city

1:31:49planning determination dated

1:31:51July 24th, 2026, approving a

1:31:54modification modification of

1:31:55entitlements for residential

1:31:57project located at 6007 Sunset

1:31:59Boulevard in Hollywood. To

1:32:00reduce the required minimum

1:32:02floor to floor height at all

1:32:04above grade parking levels from

1:32:0711ft to 10ft. I'm here to share

1:32:08our concurrence with staff's

1:32:10recommendation and share a bit

1:32:11more about the project's

1:32:13context. In early 2025, with

1:32:16the new MIP incentive program

1:32:17effective under chip, the

1:32:19applicant approached city

1:32:20planning in our office about

1:32:21the potential of adding 63

1:32:23additional units and another

1:32:24floor to the project, all while

1:32:27only increasing the height of

1:32:28the building by four feet. This

1:32:30new project was allowed

1:32:31entirely by right under chip,

1:32:33as opposed to the smaller

1:32:34project that needed City

1:32:35Planning Commission approval

1:32:37for a density bonus and site

1:32:38plan review. Just a few years

1:32:40prior, our office was

1:32:42supportive of this pivot to add

1:32:43these additional units, new

1:32:45units coming to our district,

1:32:46including 14 affordable

1:32:48construction permits, had

1:32:49already been issued in early

1:32:512024, but our office worked

1:32:52with city planning and the

1:32:53applicant to forge a path in

1:32:55which they could permit these

1:32:56modifications. While the

1:32:57project had already entered the

1:32:58construction phase, after a bit

1:33:00of back and forth, it was

1:33:01determined that a modification

1:33:02of entitlement was needed for

1:33:04the former project not to

1:33:05permit the increased density,

1:33:07but just to reduce the height

1:33:08of the parking garage by one

1:33:10foot on each level to fit the

1:33:11additional units in the

1:33:12building's envelope. Emerson

1:33:14College, who owns and operates

1:33:15the college campus directly

1:33:16across the street from this new

1:33:17project is the appellant. In

1:33:19both our review of the appeal

1:33:21materials and through direct

1:33:22communication with Emerson,

1:33:24we've determined the primary

1:33:25concern is about the safety and

1:33:27structural integrity of the

1:33:28building. Due to the fact that

1:33:29the project changed scope

1:33:30during construction to add

1:33:31these additional units. Because

1:33:32the updated project is by right,

1:33:34any interested parties have

1:33:35lost some ability to look at

1:33:37the scope of the new project

1:33:38that they would have been privy

1:33:40to with the case hearing at the

1:33:41City Planning Commission. And

1:33:43we hear Emerson's concerns

1:33:44about that loss. However, since

1:33:45this narrow appeal focuses

1:33:47solely on the modification of

1:33:49entitlements, we believe this

1:33:50might not be the appropriate

1:33:51venue to work through these

1:33:52concerns. That said, our office

1:33:54is here today to publicly,

1:33:56publicly commit to working with

1:33:57both the appellant and the

1:33:59applicant, as well as any

1:34:00relevant staff from the

1:34:01Department of Building and

1:34:01Safety who have been conducting

1:34:03regular inspections of the

1:34:04project throughout construction

1:34:05to ensure the project's

1:34:07compliance with our building

1:34:08and safety code as it nears

1:34:09completion, our office is

1:34:11supportive of finding a way to

1:34:13allow for post entitlement

1:34:14projects to take advantage of

1:34:15new zoning and density changes

1:34:17that allow for the provision of

1:34:18more housing by right. In this

1:34:21case, the applicant and city

1:34:22departments had to work

1:34:23together very closely to find a

1:34:24way to make this possible. And

1:34:26we would be interesting

1:34:27interested in creating a more

1:34:29standardized process moving

1:34:30forward, one that allows for

1:34:31projects to take advantage of

1:34:33new zoning changes that come

1:34:35online while ensuring

1:34:36transparency and efficiency. As

1:34:38we streamline housing programs

1:34:39and move larger projects to buy

1:34:41right, we want to make sure

1:34:43it's fair for any applicant to

1:34:44utilize the programs, even if

1:34:45they've already permitted

1:34:46another project. In brief, we

1:34:49recommend denial of the appeal

1:34:50with the commitment from our

1:34:51office to work with our city

1:34:53departments and the two parties

1:34:54in this case, to ensure

1:34:55transparency that this project

1:34:56has met our city. Standards for

1:34:58building and fire code

1:34:59conformance in a more

1:35:00appropriate venue. Thank you,

1:35:01and I'm available for any

1:35:03questions. Thank you. Okay.

1:35:06We'll now move to committee

1:35:07discussion. Are there any

1:35:08comments or questions on this

1:35:09item? Seeing no comments or

1:35:13questions, I'm going to go

1:35:15ahead and recommend that we

1:35:16deny the appeal filed by

1:35:17Emerson College and thereby

1:35:20sustain the Planning

1:35:21Department's approval of the

1:35:22modification of entitlements to

1:35:23modify conditions number one

1:35:24and 70 for the construction,

1:35:26use and maintenance of a seven

1:35:27story, 102,224 square foot

1:35:31mixed use building with 109

1:35:33dwelling units, 14,657ft■!S of

1:35:36ground floor commercial space

1:35:38and a total of 196 automobile

1:35:40parking spaces within one one

1:35:43subterranean and three above

1:35:45ground level of parking at the

1:35:48property, located at 607 West

1:35:50Sunset Boulevard. That's 601

1:35:52through 60223 West Sunset

1:35:55Boulevard. 150331517 North

1:35:58Gordon Street. 150631512 North

1:36:01Lake Avenue. Subject to

1:36:03adoption of the findings and be

1:36:06determined based on the whole

1:36:07of the administrative record,

1:36:08that the project is exempt from

1:36:09CEQA pursuant to CEQA

1:36:10guidelines. Section 15301,

1:36:11class one. There is no

1:36:13substantial evidence

1:36:14demonstrating that an exception

1:36:15to the categorical exemption

1:36:17pursuant to sequel guidelines.

1:36:18Section 15300.2 applies. With

1:36:22that, let's call the roll

1:36:25Blumenfield Blumenfield I Raman

1:36:27absent. Bravo. Yes, Lee. Aye.

1:36:32Nazarian aye. Four ayes and the

1:36:34Po is denied. Thank you. I know

1:36:37we're about to move to 18,

1:36:38although I've been informed

1:36:39that on item 12. Okay we're

1:36:43going to wait and hear just to

1:36:45what I'm talking about on item

1:36:4712. There are some technical

1:36:48change that needs to be made.

1:36:50So we're going to ask for

1:36:51reconsideration of that. After

1:36:52we do item 18. They're still

1:36:54working out some of the details.

1:36:55So we're going to do item 18.

1:36:57But but don't don't leave your

1:37:00desk after after we do 18

1:37:01because we're going to come

1:37:02back for a very quick fix on

1:37:04item 12 if that works. So

1:37:06moving to item 18, which would

1:37:09have been our last item, but

1:37:10we're going to come back to

1:37:12item 12. As I said, if we could

1:37:14read that into the record. This

1:37:15is a report regarding SB 79

1:37:17local Alternative plan. So go

1:37:19ahead. Yes, sir. It's a

1:37:21planning department report

1:37:22relative to developing a city

1:37:24wide local plan and

1:37:27implementing an equitable

1:37:28strategy for SB 79 capacity

1:37:32distribution. This item is also

1:37:33referred to the Budget and

1:37:34Finance Committee. Okay, we'll

1:37:38start with the planning

1:37:39department presentation and

1:37:41then we'll go to public comment.

1:37:42Hi, this is Shawna Benson,

1:37:44Deputy director. I'll kick it

1:37:45off with a couple framing

1:37:47sentences. Please note that

1:37:47there were a few items today

1:37:49already at plum on consent that

1:37:51did reference SB 79. Those were

1:37:53concluding as more of a

1:37:55formality and otherwise folded

1:37:57into the department's work.

1:37:58This item is the SB 79 topic

1:38:02for the day, in which we seek

1:38:04action on the alternative plan

1:38:06potential. We're here today in

1:38:08response to a council motion,

1:38:09and to affirm initiation of a

1:38:11citywide alternative plan to

1:38:13comply with Senate Bill 79

1:38:16regulations. This is a follow

1:38:17up from previous SB 79 Council

1:38:19decisions that will brief

1:38:21briefly cover. To be clear, we

1:38:23are not presenting a proposed

1:38:25alternative plan today, but

1:38:26it's really a starting point

1:38:27with information to inform what

1:38:29considerations are needed to

1:38:30launch work on a plan. We're

1:38:33seeking confirmation today on

1:38:34our approach, including guiding

1:38:37indicators or factors that

1:38:38would inform capacity

1:38:40distribution in and among the

1:38:42146 station areas that we would

1:38:44be looking at. Karen Ricci,

1:38:47Principal city Planner, will go

1:38:48ahead and give a presentation.

1:38:49Thank you, thank you. Shawna.

1:38:51Karen Ricci with the Department

1:38:52of City Planning. I'm joined by

1:38:55Ulysses Gonzalez with the City

1:38:57Planning department as well. So

1:39:00over the last year since SB 79

1:39:02was signed into law, the city

1:39:03has discussed and evaluated how

1:39:06to locally implement SB 79 in

1:39:08line with our adopted housing

1:39:10element and affirmatively

1:39:11furthering fair housing goals.

1:39:13The October 6th report and the

1:39:15presentation today respond

1:39:16specifically to motion for a.

1:39:18From March of this year, which

1:39:19asked city planning to come

1:39:21back with a preliminary

1:39:22framework and work plan for

1:39:24developing a Local Plan,

1:39:25including a strategy for

1:39:27outreach, a scope of work and

1:39:28an anticipated timeline. In

1:39:31June, City Council adopted the

1:39:33low rise and phased

1:39:34implementation ordinances,

1:39:35which effectively paused SB 79

1:39:37from going into effect across

1:39:39the city by proactively

1:39:41increasing zoning capacity in

1:39:42single family and low density

1:39:44zones across the city. Across

1:39:46the 58 identified opportunity

1:39:48Stations in the city,

1:39:50developing a Local Plan as

1:39:51phase two of local

1:39:53implementation of SB 79 will

1:39:55likely require additional

1:39:56increases to capacity to all

1:39:59146 station areas in the city,

1:40:01including some of the

1:40:02opportunity stations that are

1:40:03already eligible for the low

1:40:04rise program. Today, there are

1:40:07different rules and capacity

1:40:08requirements under the law for

1:40:09a local plan than the phased

1:40:11implementation rules, and I'll

1:40:12walk through some of those

1:40:14today. The key benefits of a

1:40:16Local Plan are that it builds

1:40:18off of the city's successful

1:40:19adopted housing programs and

1:40:21our policies to affirmatively

1:40:22furthering fair housing. It

1:40:24allows a level of tailoring of

1:40:26standards and design standards

1:40:28through preset zoning packages,

1:40:30and it enables the city to

1:40:31prioritize how SB 79 capacity

1:40:33is distributed, subject to the

1:40:35rules of the Local Plan. The

1:40:37report identifies guiding

1:40:39indicators to help inform this

1:40:41capacity distribution within a

1:40:43station area, or to inform the

1:40:45distribution if capacity needs

1:40:46to be shifted across station

1:40:48areas. In developing a Local

1:40:51Plan, city planning would

1:40:53develop one citywide local plan,

1:40:55not individual plans by

1:40:57neighborhood. A draft Local

1:40:59Plan will need to be submitted

1:41:01to the state Department of

1:41:02Housing and Community

1:41:03Development or state HCD, for

1:41:05early review, alongside the

1:41:07next housing element, which

1:41:08will be in the fall of 2028.

1:41:10That gives us two years from

1:41:12now to develop and prepare to

1:41:14submit a draft local plan to

1:41:15the state for review. Because

1:41:17of this timeline, as well as

1:41:19the Local Plan rules, outreach

1:41:21for the Local Plan will be

1:41:22targeted and focused both in

1:41:24scope and in timeline, to

1:41:26successfully develop and submit

1:41:27a Local plan, city planning is

1:41:30requesting staff and consultant

1:41:31resources for the program,

1:41:32which are outlined in appendix

1:41:33D of the report. I'm now on

1:41:38slide seven, going into the

1:41:40rules of a local plan a bit

1:41:41more. At a citywide level, we

1:41:43are obligated to maintain 100%

1:41:46of the net capacity that is

1:41:48allowed under SB 79 in our

1:41:50Local Plan. In addition to

1:41:52maintaining the citywide

1:41:54capacity, each station area

1:41:56must maintain at least 50% of

1:41:57the net capacity allowed within

1:41:59that station area. That means

1:42:01that stations cannot be fully

1:42:03exempted, carved out or removed

1:42:05as part of a local plan. Each

1:42:07site that is eligible for SB 79

1:42:10must also maintain at least 50%

1:42:12of what the law would allow.

1:42:14There are some exceptions,

1:42:15which I'll cover on the next

1:42:16slide. In addition to the 50%

1:42:20minimum requirement for every

1:42:21site in developing a local plan,

1:42:23we cannot count anything in

1:42:25excess of 200% of what SB 79

1:42:28would allow for one capacity on

1:42:31one site towards the overall

1:42:33station or citywide capacity.

1:42:35So what that means is we cannot

1:42:37move all the capacity within a

1:42:38station area to one large

1:42:40receiver site in order to

1:42:42exempt other sites in the

1:42:43station area, in addition to

1:42:45the capacity requirements that

1:42:46are outlined in the law, we

1:42:48need to submit an updated local

1:42:51plan to the state every eight

1:42:52years alongside our housing

1:42:54element for review and approval.

1:42:57Slide eight. So going into the

1:42:59site exceptions, certain sites

1:43:00can be exempted from that 50%

1:43:03minimum requirement in the

1:43:05Local Plan. These include state

1:43:07designated Cal fire, very high

1:43:09fire hazard severity zone areas,

1:43:11as well as locally designated

1:43:13historic resources. So that

1:43:14would be H, p o, Z and

1:43:16Historic-Cultural monuments.

1:43:17The area exempted for historic

1:43:20resources cannot exceed 10% of

1:43:22the cumulative land area of

1:43:24that particular station area.

1:43:26In addition to those two

1:43:28exemptions, properties that are

1:43:30within a half mile radius of a

1:43:31tier two station. So the outer

1:43:33tier of the lower tier of the

1:43:35stations can be reduced to 30

1:43:37dwelling units per acre and

1:43:391FAR. However, if we exempt any

1:43:42properties below 50%, we cannot

1:43:46count the capacity from those

1:43:47sites towards the overall

1:43:49station or citywide net

1:43:50capacity. So there will be

1:43:52considerations to be made about

1:43:53how broadly we apply the

1:43:54various exceptions. To

1:43:57reiterate, even if we use the

1:43:59exceptions in a site in a

1:44:00station area, that station will

1:44:02still need to maintain at least

1:44:0450% of the net capacity for

1:44:05that station. So we will look

1:44:07to offset any exceptions we

1:44:09take advantage of to other

1:44:11parts of that station area

1:44:12where feasible, to provide a

1:44:16visual of what some of the

1:44:17capacity redistribution might

1:44:18look like. On the left, we have

1:44:20an example of what might be

1:44:22permitted under the quarter

1:44:23mile radius of a tier two

1:44:25station. In the middle, we see

1:44:27a hypothetical building that

1:44:29has been reduced to 50% of what

1:44:31SB 79 allows, which is

1:44:33permitted under the law down to

1:44:34three stories and about half of

1:44:36what the FAR and density is

1:44:38permitted. If we reduce sites

1:44:40down to 50%, it means that

1:44:42other sites in that station

1:44:43area, as well as in the city,

1:44:45would be ■increased

1:44:46substantially to above what SB

1:44:4879 would allow by right,

1:44:50potentially to 12 stories or

1:44:51more and 6FAR in this example.

1:44:56Because of these requirements

1:44:57and the rules around capacity,

1:44:59we will be somewhat limited in

1:45:00our ability to move capacity

1:45:02around from station area to

1:45:03station area. We've developed

1:45:05guiding indicators to provide

1:45:07guidance and direction on how

1:45:08to systematically implement the

1:45:11exceptions as we develop a

1:45:12local plan, and how to

1:45:14redistribute the capacity that

1:45:15will need to be offset as a

1:45:17result of these exceptions. The

1:45:21guiding indicators that are

1:45:22laid out in the report build

1:45:24off of discussions over the

1:45:25past year, and create a

1:45:27framework for how the city

1:45:28might redistribute capacity in

1:45:30creating a local Plan. As a

1:45:32reminder, there are still

1:45:33strict rules for every site and

1:45:35every station area to maintain

1:45:37at least 50% of what SB 79

1:45:39would allow. So these guiding

1:45:41indicators do not set in stone

1:45:43that all growth will be moved

1:45:44towards one kind of station

1:45:46area or away from another.

1:45:48Instead, they propose certain

1:45:49principles for the department

1:45:50to evaluate and consider if and

1:45:53when capacity needs to be

1:45:54directed from one part of a

1:45:56station to another, or how to

1:45:58inform distribution. If

1:46:00capacity needs to be shifted

1:46:01from one station area to

1:46:02another station area, the first

1:46:05two guiding indicators would

1:46:07prioritize any redistribution

1:46:08of capacity that needs to be

1:46:10made up to maintain our city

1:46:12wide net capacity into a

1:46:14station area that is in a high

1:46:16opportunity area, or has high

1:46:18quality transit access. And

1:46:20high quality transit could mean

1:46:22a variety of things. It could

1:46:23mean heavy rail, or it could

1:46:24mean an intersection of rail

1:46:26lines, a station or a line with

1:46:28high ridership. Or it could

1:46:29prioritize transit stops that

1:46:31are under construction or

1:46:33already built, as opposed to

1:46:34ones that are in the pipeline.

1:46:37The third, fourth and fifth

1:46:38indicators would help us

1:46:40identify when and how to shift

1:46:42capacity from certain areas, as

1:46:44allowed under the state law,

1:46:45and the extent with which to

1:46:47apply the available exemptions

1:46:50allowed for a Local Plan. These

1:46:53guiding indicators will help us

1:46:54understand, as we develop a

1:46:56Local plan, where we implement

1:46:57the available exemptions and

1:46:59where we want to prioritize

1:47:01redirecting the capacity that

1:47:03we would need to make up. If we

1:47:04implement the exemptions and

1:47:06still be compliant with all the

1:47:07capacity requirements under SB

1:47:0979. I'm now going to skip ahead

1:47:13to slide 15 and provide a brief

1:47:16overview of the outreach

1:47:17strategy, timeline and

1:47:19recommendations. Because of the

1:47:21focus timeline and the rules of

1:47:23the Local Plan, the outreach

1:47:24will first and foremost focus

1:47:26on informing the public and

1:47:27soliciting input on key policy

1:47:30elements as we develop a Local

1:47:32Plan, tool outreach will focus

1:47:34on digital outreach and

1:47:36multimedia strategies, as well

1:47:38as other tools to make sure we

1:47:39are getting the word out

1:47:40citywide. The department will

1:47:42also work closely with council

1:47:43office staff and look at

1:47:45developing a communication

1:47:46toolkit to help effectively

1:47:48message the work and engage

1:47:49with stakeholders across the

1:47:50city. For the timeline. After

1:47:54receiving council direction,

1:47:56the department will begin

1:47:57drafting the Local Plan

1:47:59implementation tool based on

1:48:00the guiding indicators laid out

1:48:01in the report. Conduct mapping,

1:48:04analysis and prepare for

1:48:05community engagement. Following

1:48:08that, we will share the draft

1:48:10concepts and receive input and

1:48:11feedback on the shapable parts

1:48:13of the plan from the public. In

1:48:152028, the Department will

1:48:17prepare for submittal to HCD

1:48:18for early review alongside the

1:48:20seventh cycle Housing Element

1:48:21in fall of 2028 and in 2029. We

1:48:25anticipate ongoing coordination

1:48:26with HCD, any revisions as

1:48:29needed and working towards the

1:48:30adoption of the Local Plan. So

1:48:31that is in place by 2030. So

1:48:34that brings me to our summary

1:48:35and recommendations. Developing

1:48:38a local plan will be a complex

1:48:41process that may require and

1:48:43result in changes to all SB 79

1:48:45areas across the city. Key

1:48:48decisions will need to be made

1:48:49about where SB 79 exemptions or

1:48:51capacity limitations should be

1:48:53implemented, and where SB 79

1:48:56capacity should be redirected

1:48:57so that we can maintain our

1:48:59required capacity goals. The

1:49:01department presents today a

1:49:03report with our recommendation

1:49:04to develop and implement a city

1:49:05wide local plan and an

1:49:07equitable strategy for capacity

1:49:09distribution, as well as the

1:49:10request for resources for staff

1:49:12and consultant work to complete

1:49:13the technical analysis

1:49:15necessary. That concludes our

1:49:17presentation and we're here for

1:49:17any questions. Thank you. Thank

1:49:20you. Before we move to

1:49:21questions and comments, let's

1:49:23see if there's any members of

1:49:24the public who are here to

1:49:26speak to this item. If anyone

1:49:27is here, please come forward.

1:49:44Welcome. Is it one minute or

1:49:48two? That's one minute. Okay.

1:49:49All right. Okay. Good afternoon.

1:49:52Should I start now? Yes, please.

1:49:54Go ahead. All right. Good

1:49:55afternoon. My name is Greg

1:49:56Bonin. I'm an attorney with

1:49:57Public Counsel, which is a

1:49:59member of act LA. We've been

1:50:01engaged in the SB 79 process,

1:50:03both when it was suggesting

1:50:05amendments as it moved through

1:50:06the legislature and then the

1:50:07city's implementation. We have

1:50:10three, I think, small

1:50:12amendments that were

1:50:14recommending to build on the

1:50:15thoughtful recommendations that

1:50:16the Department is putting

1:50:18forward. The first one is to

1:50:20add one more guiding indicator,

1:50:23which would would explicitly

1:50:25name that preventing the

1:50:27displacement of low income

1:50:29renters should be a guiding

1:50:30indicator in this plan. You

1:50:32know, there's 146 stations.

1:50:35Only 56 of those are

1:50:36opportunity stations. The vast

1:50:39majority of other stations are

1:50:40in low income areas. This plan

1:50:42could really be increasing

1:50:43development capacity in low

1:50:44income areas. Along with that,

1:50:46we believe the housing

1:50:47department should be directed

1:50:48to recommend complementary

1:50:51policies that could be adopted

1:50:52to protect renters alongside

1:50:53this plan. Thank you. Next

1:50:57speaker. Hi there. My name is

1:50:59Maria Patino Gutierrez and I'm

1:51:01with sage, also with LA. And

1:51:03yes, we've been here a couple

1:51:04times before to talk about SB

1:51:0679. And now we have to plan for

1:51:08what we delayed. As you know,

1:51:10South Sage is concerned about

1:51:12displacement. So echoing what

1:51:14Greg said, we want to encourage

1:51:16one of the guiding factors to

1:51:17be the displacement risk in the

1:51:19stations, in particular in

1:51:20lower resource areas. So we

1:51:23know we'll be back here in a

1:51:24couple of months, but we really

1:51:26want you all to continue to

1:51:27work with us to make sure that

1:51:29this is an equitable policy.

1:51:30Thank you. Okay. Any other

1:51:35members of the public? Okay.

1:51:39Then we will move to committee

1:51:42discussion. I want to start by

1:51:45thanking the planning for this

1:51:47thorough report and roadmap.

1:51:49And before we get into the

1:51:50discussion about what the local

1:51:52alt plan should look like, I

1:51:53want to emphasize that this

1:51:55discussion is entirely academic.

1:51:57Unless we provide the planning

1:51:59department with the resources

1:52:00they need to actually do this

1:52:02work. So I'm going to offer a

1:52:04handful of amendments at the

1:52:05end of this discussion, one of

1:52:07which is going to be to

1:52:08instruct the Cao to find that

1:52:10funding, because we we need to

1:52:13not just talk the talk. We need

1:52:14to walk the walk and, and do it.

1:52:17We talk a lot about local

1:52:18control. SB 79 imposes a

1:52:21mandate on the city, but gives

1:52:22us a fair amount of discretion

1:52:24or local control about how to

1:52:25meet that mandate. We should

1:52:26take advantage of that

1:52:27flexibility for planning needs

1:52:30funding to do that within the

1:52:31time frames that are allowed by

1:52:33the state. The intent of SB 79

1:52:35is to encourage housing, near

1:52:36high quality transit, and to

1:52:37focus more development in

1:52:38higher opportunity areas. At

1:52:40the same time, SB 79 allows us

1:52:43to exempt areas, as you

1:52:44mentioned, such as high very

1:52:45high fire severity zones, and

1:52:48it doesn't allow projects that

1:52:50demolish. It does not allow

1:52:51projects that demolish. So

1:52:53properties. It also focuses on

1:52:56paper zoning capacity, unlike

1:52:58our housing element, which

1:52:59requires us to actually look at

1:53:01the realistic zoning capacity.

1:53:03For example, we identify a

1:53:04large parcel for capacity, but

1:53:05in reality, a Kaiser is already

1:53:07there. The likelihood that that

1:53:09Kaiser is going anywhere or

1:53:10going to be torn down is close

1:53:12to zero. So one concern is that

1:53:14the exemptions and the way the

1:53:16capacity is counted will allow

1:53:17the city to comply, potentially

1:53:19on paper, but violate actually

1:53:22the spirit of it and continue

1:53:23to exempt a lot of the high

1:53:25opportunity zones from

1:53:26significant change. For my own

1:53:28district, there's a lot of

1:53:31stations along the orange line

1:53:32or the G line that are

1:53:33surrounded by properties that

1:53:35cannot be exempted in any way.

1:53:37And yet I look at the maps of

1:53:39the purple and red line station,

1:53:40and I see comparably few sites

1:53:42that could be realistically

1:53:44developed. So related to that,

1:53:45the question is how will you

1:53:47address this concern and ensure

1:53:48that the plan actually serves

1:53:50the goal of focusing growth on

1:53:52the higher resource areas along

1:53:54these high quality transit

1:53:55lines, so that we don't

1:53:57artificially push it to areas

1:53:59that, you know, make less sense.

1:54:04Chairperson Blumenfield, for

1:54:05the record, thank you for that

1:54:07question. So, you know, our

1:54:09understanding with the Local

1:54:10Plan is that every site and

1:54:11every station has to maintain

1:54:1350% of its capacity. So we're

1:54:15not shifting capacity entirely

1:54:17away from certain station areas.

1:54:20What we don't need to

1:54:21demonstrate the kind of

1:54:22realistic capacity, the same

1:54:24way that we have with things

1:54:25like the housing element, the

1:54:27guardrails for the Local Plan,

1:54:29do prevent us from, again,

1:54:31putting all of the growth for a

1:54:33certain station or a certain

1:54:34neighborhood onto one large

1:54:35site and calling it a day. In

1:54:38addition, I think the guiding

1:54:39indicators that have been laid

1:54:41out and part of the

1:54:42recommendation is that if if we

1:54:43are looking to redistribute any

1:54:45of that growth, we would be

1:54:47emphasizing it in higher

1:54:48opportunity areas. And I think

1:54:49that would that would continue

1:54:50to meet the intent of the bill.

1:54:52Okay. And then your report

1:54:54indicates that if we have an

1:54:55all plan, we can exempt new

1:54:57stations from SB 79 authorized

1:55:00development until the next

1:55:01housing element, which could be

1:55:03eight years away. Are we

1:55:06required to wait that long, or

1:55:07could we choose to modify our

1:55:09plans to incorporate those

1:55:10stations as they come online?

1:55:12Or even better, develop

1:55:13neighborhood transit plans that

1:55:15incorporate the SB 79 as those

1:55:17transit stations are being

1:55:18built? Yeah. Karen. Rishi, for

1:55:20the record, yes. So the housing

1:55:23element is updated every eight

1:55:24years. And as part of the Local

1:55:26Plan requirements, the first

1:55:28submittal would need to be

1:55:29again alongside the seventh

1:55:30cycle housing element. And

1:55:32every eight years with each

1:55:33housing Element update, we

1:55:35would need to submit an updated

1:55:36local plan for each CD review

1:55:39and approval. During that eight

1:55:41year interim, new stations that

1:55:43come online would not be

1:55:44subject to SB 79. Once we have

1:55:46a A local plan adopted and in

1:55:49place. If stations did come

1:55:50online, I think that would be a

1:55:52policy decision for the city.

1:55:54We would have to do additional

1:55:55modeling and analysis at that

1:55:57time to make sure we're meeting

1:55:58all the capacity requirements.

1:56:00If that station were subject to

1:56:02some exemptions, for example,

1:56:03we would have to look at

1:56:05another station that might

1:56:06already have the adopted local

1:56:08plan and decide if it's taking

1:56:10on more capacity at that time.

1:56:12So I think that would that

1:56:13would be maybe a case by case

1:56:15basis. If it's a single station

1:56:16or an entire new transit line

1:56:18that is coming on. Okay. And

1:56:20then will you have the capacity

1:56:21to tailor plans for each of the

1:56:23station areas? And for example,

1:56:25there are some small pockets of

1:56:26single family zoning that were

1:56:27cut off from the rest of the

1:56:29neighborhoods decades ago when

1:56:30the freeways were built,

1:56:31because many of our transit

1:56:32lines were built on former

1:56:33railroad right of ways. The

1:56:35stations are sometimes just a

1:56:36few blocks from the existing

1:56:37commercial districts with

1:56:38access to stores and

1:56:39restaurants. If you're given

1:56:41the resources you need, will

1:56:42you have the time and the

1:56:43ability to be thoughtful about

1:56:45putting the additional capacity

1:56:46where it makes sense from an

1:56:48urban planning perspective,

1:56:49instead of just, you know, the

1:56:50old compass and circle drawing.

1:56:54Yeah. For the record, given the

1:56:57deadline to submit a draft to

1:56:59HCD two years from now, we

1:57:01won't be able to do the same

1:57:02block by block analysis that we

1:57:04tend to do with longer term

1:57:06programs like community plan

1:57:08updates. That being said, as

1:57:10part of our initial analysis,

1:57:12we we could take a look at

1:57:14certain situations where we do

1:57:16have that inconsistent zoning

1:57:17or pockets of zoning that are

1:57:18not similar to the surrounding

1:57:20land uses for one reason or

1:57:22another, and we could treat

1:57:24them similarly to the adjacent

1:57:25areas if that was desired. In

1:57:28addition, for for stations that

1:57:30maybe don't have commercial

1:57:32amenities or other uses right

1:57:34next to the station, as part of

1:57:36our local plan development, we

1:57:39would be evaluating as well.

1:57:40You know, if we want to

1:57:42introduce commercial uses and

1:57:43mixed use zoning potentially

1:57:45into some of these areas. And

1:57:46that's the kind of thing that

1:57:48we could engage with, with

1:57:50stakeholders on as part of the

1:57:51kind of shapable components of,

1:57:53of this policy work. Okay. And

1:57:55then the SB 79 rules around the

1:57:58housing element. Other state

1:58:00mandates require the city to

1:58:01act quickly to prepare

1:58:03neighborhoods, neighborhoods

1:58:03for future growth. And we do

1:58:05act quickly when we're forced.

1:58:08At the same time, it takes us

1:58:09more than a decade to update

1:58:11community plans. And that slow

1:58:13pace is one is one one of the

1:58:15reasons why the state keeps

1:58:17taking more and more power away

1:58:18from us on local control. So my

1:58:20question is, are there lessons

1:58:22learned from our housing

1:58:23specific work that we can apply

1:58:24to the community plans and

1:58:25other long range planning

1:58:27efforts? Shawna Benson

1:58:31microphone. Thank you, Shawna

1:58:32Benson. I can answer that.

1:58:34Thank you so much for the

1:58:35question. It's a good

1:58:37opportunity as we advance our

1:58:38work programs to kind of assess

1:58:40and see how they're going. So

1:58:42the quick answer is yes. We

1:58:44have observed the success of

1:58:45housing specific work in terms

1:58:47of timing and content. I will

1:58:50frame it as housing capacity is

1:58:52approached, has really changed

1:58:54substantially in the last

1:58:55decade. In the last several

1:58:57years, as city planning has

1:58:58developed housing programs,

1:59:00we've learned how they've

1:59:01impacted and interacted with

1:59:03other ongoing and sometimes

1:59:05overlapping work programs and

1:59:06seeing how they've moved ahead.

1:59:08This includes community plan

1:59:10updates. So in looking at that,

1:59:12we've learned that as the state

1:59:13advances housing policy in a

1:59:15more robust manner, we have

1:59:17less of an ability at the local

1:59:19level to really tailor our

1:59:21housing in our community plans

1:59:22or for that matter, even keep

1:59:24up with changing housing

1:59:26regulations, the community

1:59:27plans and other long range

1:59:28planning efforts could benefit

1:59:30from some of what we've seen.

1:59:32Perhaps the urgency of a state

1:59:33mandate, the reliance on a

1:59:35single CEQA document, or in

1:59:37some cases, CEQA exemptions. So

1:59:39we're we're thinking about ways

1:59:40in which we can take advantage

1:59:42of those processes. Something

1:59:45else that comes to mind, and

1:59:46perhaps an advantage of the

1:59:48housing work is a single focus

1:59:50purpose. That's not to say that

1:59:51what. Housing initiatives are

1:59:53easy, but I will say that

1:59:56community plans do meaningful

1:59:57work that really deeply engage

1:59:59community members and looking

2:00:00at zoning to preserve and

2:00:02promote small businesses,

2:00:03environmental justice issues

2:00:05and a lot of other land uses

2:00:07besides housing. I will also

2:00:10state that, you know, our

2:00:11Active Community plan work

2:00:13program is updating the

2:00:14underlying zoning on every

2:00:16single parcel of every

2:00:18community plan to our new

2:00:19zoning code. With that in mind,

2:00:22the department is considering

2:00:23how we can improve the

2:00:25community planning program,

2:00:26such as using state law to our

2:00:28advantage, or when it comes to

2:00:29our time frames and how to

2:00:30focus our efforts to use

2:00:33features that really reduce

2:00:35redundancies. So where we're

2:00:36seeing policies that are

2:00:37effective in housing and other

2:00:39areas to really focus our

2:00:40community plans to the topics

2:00:42that are not covered. Okay,

2:00:46colleagues. Mr. Nazarian, thank

2:00:49you, Mr. Chair. First of all,

2:00:50thank you again to Planning

2:00:52Department, echoing the

2:00:52sentiments of what chair said,

2:00:54very much appreciate your work

2:00:56and very much appreciate how

2:00:57quickly you've been moving on

2:00:59this as well to make sure that

2:01:00we're hitting the deadlines

2:01:01needed. You know, I, I was

2:01:08looking forward to just

2:01:09listening. I wasn't coming in

2:01:10with too many questions, but I

2:01:12do appreciate what the two

2:01:14speakers brought up regarding

2:01:16displaced individuals. And

2:01:19while I believe that you did

2:01:22cover it in your presentation,

2:01:27it's not a core and I would

2:01:30want to adopt or include. As

2:01:37you go further in your in your

2:01:40work on this, to make sure that

2:01:42your highlighting that as one

2:01:46of the core essential

2:01:47components. So I don't know if

2:01:48I need to make a motion on that

2:01:51to do what you said to include

2:01:55the, the, what the speakers had

2:01:57discussed. The two speakers

2:01:58have discussed about the.

2:02:02Display displaced existing

2:02:03displaced tenants. Yeah. And we

2:02:07can do that as a report. You

2:02:08know, I as a directive, I think

2:02:11we end up. Maybe a policy thing,

2:02:15but in the recommendation I do

2:02:16have the department emphasize

2:02:18the capacity in the areas of

2:02:20least risk of displacing low

2:02:21income tenants as one of the

2:02:23one of the bullets, which I

2:02:24think captures that I can I can

2:02:27go ahead and read the

2:02:28directions that I'm planning on

2:02:29putting forward, which I think

2:02:31captures most of what they're

2:02:32saying. And then we'll, we'll,

2:02:34we can delve into that further

2:02:35as we as we go down this

2:02:38process. Okay. Okay. I just

2:02:40want to make sure that it's

2:02:42part of the. The components

2:02:47that were being discussed,

2:02:48whether opportunity, mass

2:02:50transit. So. Okay. Thank you.

2:02:53Okay. Absolutely. Mr. Li. Yeah,

2:02:58thank you, Mr. Chair. First of

2:02:59all, I want to thank the

2:03:01planning department, as

2:03:02everyone else has, for their

2:03:03efforts on the implementation

2:03:04of SB 79. I know how many how

2:03:06much work you've put into this.

2:03:08There's going to be a lot more

2:03:10work over the next few years.

2:03:12And so I wanted to thank you

2:03:14for that. I believe the

2:03:17approach of the development of

2:03:19an all local plan, with

2:03:21additional analysis, as

2:03:23recommended by the Planning

2:03:24department, gives us the best

2:03:26chance at implementing the most

2:03:28tailored program under SB 79.

2:03:32And as you mentioned, as the

2:03:33chair mentioned, not so much a

2:03:35question, but a concern that as

2:03:38part of the extensive analysis

2:03:39that would be undertaken, I'm

2:03:42requesting that the Department

2:03:43also review the impacts that

2:03:44additional housing density will

2:03:46have on the existing commercial

2:03:48corridors, you know. Sort of on

2:03:52what the chair said. Most of

2:03:54the areas affected by SB 79

2:03:57contain parcels that support

2:03:58commercial uses, and many of

2:04:00these existing commercial

2:04:02corridors are older and low

2:04:04scale. And we should consider

2:04:07how increased housing capacity

2:04:09would impact these corridors

2:04:10and identify ways to encourage

2:04:12the preservation of community

2:04:15serving businesses in these

2:04:17areas. And so I believe that

2:04:19the chair is going to add that

2:04:22into your comments, but thank

2:04:24you very much for all your work

2:04:26on this Council Member. Thank

2:04:29you and thank you. Oh, sorry,

2:04:31planning Department, for all

2:04:32the work that you're putting

2:04:34into this. You know, I have a

2:04:38couple questions. When we're

2:04:42thinking about equity and

2:04:45trying to make that from this

2:04:46theoretical practice into

2:04:48something real, especially in

2:04:49the city planning department.

2:04:51You know, from the history in

2:04:52my district, there was a move

2:04:55to. You know, develop a

2:05:00resolution for homelessness

2:05:01that was supposed to divide

2:05:03services between Skid Row,

2:05:05Westlake and Venice in order to

2:05:07contain the problem. They never

2:05:08got built in Venice and

2:05:12Westlake. Instead, they were

2:05:13hyper concentrated in Skid Row.

2:05:15And even though that was stated

2:05:17on paper that that was a

2:05:18planning decision and a

2:05:20development decision that we

2:05:20were all going to make. And so

2:05:22just wanting to understand what

2:05:25safeguards we are going to have

2:05:26in place in order to make sure

2:05:29that the high priority zones

2:05:31are the ones that are going to

2:05:33be focused upon as

2:05:35opportunities. Given that the

2:05:37zoning, as it stands, is

2:05:39already slanted in a way that's

2:05:42going to make my district 13,

2:05:44one, eight, nine, ten all be

2:05:49fair game for a lot of the

2:05:52hyper development and, you know,

2:05:54put at risk the burden of

2:05:57development once again. And so

2:05:58I just want to know what

2:06:00safeguards may be in place.

2:06:02Yeah. Thank you. Council member

2:06:03Karen Ricci for the record.

2:06:07Again, as part of the Local

2:06:08Plan, we have to ensure that

2:06:10every station is keeping 50% of

2:06:11the capacity. So this will be

2:06:14in some way distributed across

2:06:16the city. That being said, as

2:06:17we've outlined in the

2:06:20recommendations, we do want to

2:06:21emphasize that any growth that

2:06:23gets shifted or any capacity

2:06:25that gets shifted goes towards

2:06:26higher OP areas. I think

2:06:29historically, if you look at

2:06:29the land use and zoning in

2:06:31these areas as well, under SB

2:06:3379, we're looking at net

2:06:36capacity and areas of the city

2:06:37that that tend to be higher

2:06:39opportunity, have oftentimes a

2:06:41history of having lower density

2:06:43zoning already. And so there

2:06:44may be a need to, to add

2:06:46additional capacity there in

2:06:47order to meet that net capacity

2:06:49difference, as opposed to other

2:06:50areas of the city that are

2:06:51already zoned for potentially

2:06:52multifamily or higher intensity

2:06:54uses. And I'll see if Blair

2:06:56Smith wants to add anything to

2:06:57that. Blair Smith, L.A. City

2:06:59Planning. I'll also add that

2:07:01within the first year of Chip,

2:07:02you know, we set a core

2:07:04principle of expanding housing

2:07:05access and higher opportunity

2:07:06areas of the city. We

2:07:08established significant

2:07:09increases in what you can build

2:07:10in those areas, and we've seen

2:07:12that actualize in the actual

2:07:13units we're seeing proposed

2:07:15today. And in the past year of

2:07:18Chip, we've seen 57% of all

2:07:20units proposed in higher

2:07:22opportunity areas of the city,

2:07:23which is just a fundamental

2:07:24shift of what we've seen in the

2:07:26last decade 20 years, 40 years,

2:07:2750 years, and so on. So I, you

2:07:30know, I think our learned

2:07:33experience is that creating

2:07:35opportunity to have more

2:07:36housing, expanding capacity in

2:07:37these areas will potentially

2:07:40lead to actualization. Awesome.

2:07:42Yeah. I voted for the most

2:07:44extreme version of Chip the

2:07:45first week I was in office. So

2:07:48this is cool to hear where it

2:07:49actually landed. I guess one

2:07:51thing that I want to think

2:07:53about as well as we continue to

2:07:56develop what the outlook looks

2:07:58here is that the state

2:08:01basically is mandating this

2:08:03upon us, and there's no money

2:08:04attached to it. And I know

2:08:06Council member Blumenfield is

2:08:08looking for money for it, but

2:08:10the mayor's office has a

2:08:11lobbyist in Sacramento. We have

2:08:13a lobbyist in Sacramento. I'm

2:08:16told by my colleagues that in

2:08:18last budget at the state, San

2:08:21Francisco got $2 for every $1

2:08:23that the city of LA got in the

2:08:25budget. What the f? We need to

2:08:28do better. We're a bigger city.

2:08:30We are with tasked with all of

2:08:32these burdens in this unfunded

2:08:34mandate to accelerate this. And

2:08:36so I want to add an instruction

2:08:39to the item to instruct the CLA,

2:08:43with assistance from the Cao,

2:08:45to recommend state level

2:08:46funding options to cover future

2:08:48costs and cost recovery the

2:08:50city may incur due to the

2:08:52implementation of SB 79. You

2:08:55know, we can't just look at our

2:08:56general fund. It's not going to

2:08:58be enough in order to implement

2:09:00this in the time frame that we

2:09:02are being demanded to,

2:09:04especially to accommodate the

2:09:05various interest in communities

2:09:08that are so diverse in our city.

2:09:10So that's an additional

2:09:12recommendation or instruction.

2:09:14My last question is, what is

2:09:16the timeline for delivering

2:09:18amendments to the low rise

2:09:19ordinance relative to a low

2:09:20rise bonus? Why has there not

2:09:23been a single project filed via

2:09:24the low rise ordinance, and

2:09:26what must be done to make the

2:09:27program more viable immediately?

2:09:31Blair Smith, L.A. City Planning

2:09:32We are currently working on

2:09:34tracking mechanisms, so we

2:09:35don't have an actual count of

2:09:36low rise projects, but we've

2:09:38been working on integrating a

2:09:39way to track them in our system.

2:09:41So stay tuned on the number of

2:09:42low rise projects proposed.

2:09:44We're currently working on

2:09:46amendments to the low rise

2:09:47ordinance, as extracted as part

2:09:49of an omnibus work program.

2:09:51We're aiming to release a draft

2:09:52of that work program, which

2:09:54includes amendments to other

2:09:55sections of the code that

2:09:56address housing barriers, as

2:09:58well as amendments to improve

2:10:00Chip. Based off of what we've

2:10:01seen in the first year of

2:10:03implementation, we're aiming

2:10:03for that draft to be released

2:10:05by the end of this year and

2:10:07then proceeding to adoption

2:10:08next spring. Okay. Thank you.

2:10:09No further questions. Oh, and

2:10:11we also owe a report back

2:10:13related to the low rise

2:10:14ordinance and exploring 100%

2:10:17affordable incentives that

2:10:19we're also aiming to provide

2:10:20this year. Okay. Thank you

2:10:23colleagues, any additional

2:10:23comments or questions? Okay,

2:10:25then I'm going to read some

2:10:27amendments. And I've been

2:10:28tweaking them to make sure that

2:10:29I think it reflects everything

2:10:31that everyone has asked for.

2:10:35Including the last piece by

2:10:37Councilwoman. I wanted to just

2:10:38directly add that language in.

2:10:40So going to ask that we

2:10:45recommend adopt the

2:10:46recommendations in the Planning

2:10:47Department report dated October

2:10:486th, 2026 and amended as such

2:10:52to one. Instruct the Department

2:10:53of City planning to develop

2:10:56citywide local alternative plan

2:10:57and implement an equitable

2:10:58strategy for SB 79 capacity

2:11:00distribution within with

2:11:02Department consideration of the

2:11:04following factors during the

2:11:06preparation of the local

2:11:07alternative plan a to analyze

2:11:09and recommend whether all 146

2:11:12station areas are to be

2:11:13included, or whether some

2:11:14station areas be be subject to

2:11:18SB 79 outright B conduct an

2:11:21analysis and make

2:11:22recommendations as to how

2:11:24capacity might be redistributed

2:11:25within and among station areas

2:11:27as limited by state regulations.

2:11:30C recommend any shifts in

2:11:31capacity within, within or

2:11:33between station areas using

2:11:35guiding indicators or

2:11:37qualifications for station

2:11:38areas and sites as follows. One

2:11:41emphasized capacity and high

2:11:43and higher opportunity areas

2:11:45and advance existing goals for

2:11:47affirmatively furthering fair

2:11:48housing. Two intensify capacity

2:11:50around high quality transit

2:11:52stations and at transit hubs,

2:11:54taking into account whether

2:11:56transit lines are existing

2:11:57under construction, funded or

2:11:59approved. Three consider

2:12:01realistic development capacity,

2:12:04especially of large sites and

2:12:05economic feasibility of all

2:12:07different of different building

2:12:09typologies and higher and lower

2:12:10opportunity areas. Four

2:12:12evaluate capacity environment

2:12:14in environmentally sensitive

2:12:16areas in very high fire

2:12:18severity zones, in fire

2:12:19restricted areas and or

2:12:21proximity to hazardous sources

2:12:22of industrial pollution and

2:12:24develop recommendations as

2:12:26feasible within the limits of

2:12:27state regulations to shift

2:12:29capacity from these areas. Five

2:12:32to emphasize capacity in areas

2:12:34with the least risk of

2:12:36displacing low income renters.

2:12:38That's specifically to Mr.

2:12:42Nazarian's point and our

2:12:44speakers point. And then D

2:12:46those are all under C. D to

2:12:48evaluate historic resources and

2:12:51develop recommendations as

2:12:52feasible within the limitations

2:12:53of state regulation, to shift

2:12:55capacity away from these areas

2:12:57in lower resource areas. And we,

2:13:01per Mr. Li, to review the

2:13:03impacts that additional.

2:13:08Raising density will have on

2:13:09existing commercial corridors

2:13:11and consider policies to

2:13:13address potential displacement,

2:13:17and then the language about

2:13:22state level funding options,

2:13:24which is is here, which is to

2:13:26instruct the chief legislative

2:13:27analyst with assistance from

2:13:28the Chief administrative

2:13:30officer, to recommend state

2:13:32level funding options to cover

2:13:33future costs and cost recovery

2:13:36the city may incur due to the

2:13:38implementation of SB 79. So all

2:13:41of those together would be the

2:13:43recommendation. And can we call

2:13:45the roll? Wait, I forgot

2:13:49something, chair. I didn't read

2:13:522 or 3. Okay, sorry about that.

2:13:54There was two other

2:13:55recommendations. I guess I

2:13:56stopped at D and E. I have a

2:13:59lot of squiggly lines on my

2:14:01page here. Let me add in. That

2:14:03was number one. And all of

2:14:04those were subs of one. And

2:14:06then also two is to instruct

2:14:08DCP to develop and report on a

2:14:10list of recommendations of

2:14:11potential amendments to SB 79

2:14:13at the state level, as informed

2:14:14by the process of creating a

2:14:16local alternative plan for City

2:14:17Council considerations, and

2:14:18then three, importantly,

2:14:21instruct the City

2:14:22administrative officer to

2:14:23report on the Planning

2:14:24Department's request for

2:14:26additional staffing and

2:14:27contractual services for the

2:14:28local alternative plan

2:14:29development, as contained in

2:14:30the Planning Department report

2:14:32dated October 6th, 2026 and

2:14:34Budget Memo dated May 1st, 2026.

2:14:37Appendix D. I have a lot of

2:14:39squiggly lines, but I think we

2:14:41can. We can put it all together

2:14:42in the report. So with that and

2:14:45seeing no other changes, let's

2:14:47call the roll Blumenfield I

2:14:50Raman absent Jurado here, I

2:14:52mean yes, sorry, Lee I Nazarian

2:14:57I for eyes and this item is

2:14:59approved as amended. Okay,

2:15:02colleagues, I remember I

2:15:02mentioned we have to go back to

2:15:0412 very briefly. There is a

2:15:07technical change I believe,

2:15:08that staff has put in. So we

2:15:09first have to vote on

2:15:11reconsideration of 12 to add

2:15:13the change that staff has asked

2:15:14for. So let's vote on

2:15:17reconsideration of item 12.

2:15:19Blumenfield Blumenfield I Raman

2:15:21is absent. Yes. Lee I Nazarian

2:15:27I. Okay, and then we'll turn it

2:15:29over to you. What is the the

2:15:31addition that you wish that we

2:15:33needed to make? Thank you,

2:15:34Council Member, for the

2:15:36opportunity. This is Rachel

2:15:37with planning. Technical error

2:15:39has been identified in the

2:15:41consultant prepared exhibit B

2:15:43Venice Mitigation Measure

2:15:45Implementation plan. And the

2:15:47following clarification is

2:15:48proposed for your consideration.

2:15:50The first bullet point under

2:15:52potential opportunities on both

2:15:54pages 54 and 63 of exhibit B

2:15:57should be replaced with Ladot.

2:16:01Lots 701 731. The two lots are

2:16:05owned by Ladot and currently

2:16:07used for surface parking. Per

2:16:10the directive of the CD 11

2:16:12Office and Council member. Lot

2:16:15731 has been identified as a

2:16:17priority opportunity site for

2:16:18the construction of a new

2:16:20mobility hub. The mobility hub

2:16:23would come as a part of the

2:16:24city's mobility development

2:16:26plans for the 2028 Summer

2:16:29Olympics. Lot 701 has also been

2:16:33identified as a potential site

2:16:34for a housing project. This

2:16:38clarification does not change

2:16:39the analysis or recommendations.

2:16:41In the joint report dated

2:16:42August 12th, 2026. Thank you.

2:16:46Okay. Is there any members of

2:16:49the public who are here who

2:16:50wish to speak to this change,

2:16:53seeing no members of the public,

2:16:55public comment on that is

2:16:56closed. Colleagues, any

2:16:59comments or questions on this?

2:17:01No. Oh, Councilwoman Hirano,

2:17:02can you repeat which lots they

2:17:04are again? Yes. It's seven lot

2:17:08731 that has been identified

2:17:10already as a new mobility hub

2:17:13and lot 701 as a potential site

2:17:16for housing development project.

2:17:20Are any of those involved in

2:17:22current litigation? This is for

2:17:26the record, I would not be able

2:17:28to speak on that component.

2:17:32Council member. Kevin Keller,

2:17:36city planning. We'd have to

2:17:38refer to the city attorney, but

2:17:39I. I believe there may be

2:17:42litigation on. 701 okay. Thank

2:17:46you for the clarification. Is

2:17:50there anything else we need to

2:17:51know about these lots because

2:17:53it was presented as a technical

2:17:55clarification, but yes, to

2:17:57clarify, the study has been

2:17:59prepared to provide or identify

2:18:02opportunity sites that could

2:18:03provide micro mobility options

2:18:05in order to support the

2:18:07alfresco operators. So this

2:18:10clarification would provide

2:18:11more flexibility in identifying

2:18:13sites that could have

2:18:15development potential and not

2:18:16just have a limitation on a

2:18:18specific project. Colleagues.

2:18:22Any additional comments? I mean,

2:18:25if the project is currently in

2:18:28litigation and supposed to be

2:18:31housing development, how would

2:18:32this apply to that site? RT

2:18:36Raman Department of City

2:18:37Planning The proposed technical

2:18:39clarification is just striking.

2:18:41The last that what was read

2:18:43into the record is already in

2:18:44the report. That change that's

2:18:47being clarified is the last

2:18:49edition of lot 701, the housing

2:18:52Project. So the technical

2:18:54change is quite minor, even

2:18:55though the excerpt that was

2:18:59read refers to both lots. That

2:19:01is already in the report today

2:19:03in the technical study. So the

2:19:05addition is lot 701. There's no

2:19:07addition of lot 701. It's

2:19:09clarifying that it it has been

2:19:10identified for a housing

2:19:12project. So then what's the

2:19:14technical amendment? The

2:19:15technical amendment is that

2:19:16it's identified as a housing

2:19:19project rather than a specific

2:19:20housing project that has not

2:19:22gone finished the current

2:19:23process of the RFP. Okay. So

2:19:28why does this apply to it and

2:19:30why should it be included? I

2:19:31guess I'm confused if this has

2:19:33to do with alfresco programs

2:19:34that have to do with a mixed

2:19:36use or commercial use, if it's

2:19:37just solely a housing

2:19:39development. And currently

2:19:42transportation law. Yeah, it is

2:19:43a very minor correction in

2:19:45exhibit B of the the

2:19:48consultants technical study.

2:19:50Okay. It just doesn't make

2:19:52sense for me to have it

2:19:54included. All right. I'm going

2:19:56to oh, sorry. Thank you. Okay.

2:19:59Any other questions or concerns?

2:20:01Let's call the role. Were you

2:20:05going to be the recommendations

2:20:06again. Yeah. She just as we say

2:20:10as read or do I need to read

2:20:12these again. The

2:20:13recommendations that we already

2:20:14had? I mean, can't we say as

2:20:17approved before plus this

2:20:18change city attorney. Yes. If

2:20:22that's if that's the order that

2:20:25the previous recommendation be

2:20:27adopted along with this

2:20:28clarification. And that could

2:20:30be your motion. Yes. We adopted

2:20:31but not reread. So okay, if we

2:20:35can do that legally and spare

2:20:37me the trouble of reading it.

2:20:39Blumenfield I Raman absent. No,

2:20:44Lee I Nazarian I three eyes and

2:20:50this item is approved. The city.

2:21:10Let me just. Okay. Is there

2:21:12anything else on the desk?

2:21:14General public comment. Yes.

2:21:16General public comment. Is

2:21:17there anyone here for general

2:21:18public comment speak once,

2:21:21going once, going twice and

2:21:24general public comment is

2:21:25closed and that clears the desk.

2:21:27This meeting is adjourned.

2026-10-13 - Planning and Land Use Management Committee

Summary

Downtown Entertainment Zone program

Riverwalk at Studio City appeals (CF 26-1081)

Venice Coastal Zone alfresco dining public access study

Sunset Boulevard housing modification appeal (Emerson College)

SB 79 local alternative plan

Routine and consent items

Agenda

Sources

Video

Transcript