Cahuenga Representing the Cahuenga Pass Since 1952 Pass Property Owners Association June 6, 2016 President Krista Michaels Councilmember Jose Huizar, Chair Vice President Planning and Land Use Management Committee Judy Marlin Los Angeles City Council Secretary 200 N. Spring Street Timothy Thornton Los Angeles, CA 90012 Treasurer David Kegaries 0 RE:0 LAMC 12.24.W.43 and 12.24.W.44 Community Beautification 0 0 Second Dwelling Unit Ordinances Judy Marlin Valley View E.S. Liaison Dear Councilmember Huizar: Dan Bernstein The Board of Directors of the Cahuenga Pass Property Owners Association wants to Membership & Outreach Karen Riesenfeld express our concern about the City's possible repeal of the above-referenced municipal Franny Parrish codes, especially as they pertain to second dwelling units in hillside areas and on Development & Traffic substandard streets. Steven Goldfisher David Kegaries As a hillside community, many of our streets are less than standard width and the Florence Blecher prohibition on second dwelling units is an important statute. Because many of our Krista Michaels residences are old and without garages or off-street parking, homeowners often must Historic Preservation park on the street. Increasing density in a neighborhood such as this, with the Florence Blecher Sarah Hunt concomitant increase in demand for parking, would be a significant change. Theresa Larkin We do not understand the City's seeming rush to repeal these ordinances, especially Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Specific Plan Design Review when so much is at stake. We understand the pressing need for additional housing, Board but this is a city with great diversity in the topography of neighborhoods, and a single Timothy Thornton all-purpose policy in terms of land use seems not only shortsighted but out-of-date. Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council If these ordinances are repealed and the prohibitions on second dwelling units abolished, Rich Joludow HHWNC Area 2 Chair the state law default standards would allow 1,200 sq.ft. dwelling units on single-family residential lots. Many single-family homes are 1,200 sq.ft in size. Allowing such large Newsletter Azar Kattan secondary structures in R1 neighborhoods amounts to gutting the R1 zoning regulation. Krista Michaels Safety & Fire Dept. Liaison We urge you to delay any action by the PLUM Committee, and allow the communities Steven Kates in this city an opportunity to review the proposed changes and analyze the effects on NBCUniversal Citizens their individual neighborhoods, and then respond to the Council about any potential Advisory Committee negative impacts they expect to suffer. Krista Michaels Judy Marlin Respectfully, Runyon Cyn / Mulholland Curtis Wollman Krista Michaels Website Design Hillary Carlip of President, CPPOA Fly HC Multimedia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P.O. Box 1655, Hollywood, CA 90078 www.cppoa.org LAW OFFICE OF JOHN P. GIVEN 2461 Santa Monica Blvd., #438 Santa Monica, CA 90404 [email protected] (310) 471-8485 June 6, 2016 Los Angeles City Council Planning and Land Use Management Committee Councilmember Jose Huizar, Chair Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson Councilmember Gilbert A. Cedillo Councilmember Mitchell Englander Councilmember Felipe Fuentes Los Angeles City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 VIA E-MAIL to Leg. Asst. [email protected] RE: CF 14-0057-S8 (CPC-2016-1245-CA) Oppose Proposed Repeal of LAMC §§ 12.24 W.43 and W.44 Honorable PLUM Committee Members: I am a resident of Council District 11, and I serve as an officer on the boards of both my local homeowners association, Brentwood Hills Homeowners Association, and the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, Inc. (the “Hillside Federation”). Both organizations voted to oppose the City’s proposed repeal of its second dwelling unit ordinance without consideration of the potential negative impacts on hillside communities, including potentially significant environmental impacts. Both submitted letters to the City Planning Commission (“CPC”). Those letters, attached as Exhibits A and B, are incorporated by reference. Background. The project description in the Planning Department Transmittal for the above-captioned council file describes that the reason for the repeal of the City’s existing second dwelling unit ordinance is, in part, “for the purpose of complying with state law AB 1866 on Second Dwelling Units.” As the Hillside Federation and other letters and testimony to the Planning Commission make clear, this description and similar information found in the Planning Department’s report to the CPC is not accurate. When AB 1866 was passed in 2002, the legislature realized that many cities, including Los Angeles, had already enacted second dwelling unit ordinances. So long as the standards within those local ordinances were applied ministerially, the legislature did not require cities to take any additional legislative action. See Govt. Code § 65852.2(a)(3) (“When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this Planning and Land Use Management Committee June 6, 2016 Page 2 subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units.”). The City’s stated reason for the repeal action is thus inaccurate, and highly misleading. Nor is the City’s proposed action necessary to comply with any court order, including any order related to the recent LA Superior Court case Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (LA Super. Ct., 2016, BS150599). In that case, the court invalidated ZA Memo 120 as the basis to approve second dwelling units and ordered the City to invalidate one particular second dwelling unit approval. Nothing in that action invalidated the City’s existing ordinance, nor required any particular action be taken to validate previously issued entitlements, many of which may very well be entirely valid under the City’s existing zoning code. The LA Neighbors case held that the legal advice that led to the promulgation of ZA Memo 120 was incorrect, but that the City’s ordinance was not necessarily illegal under state law so long as it is applied ministerially. Rather than proceed to determine whether the ordinance’s existing and reasonable protections can be applied ministerially, the City has instead proposed to scrap the ordinance altogether. The conclusory analysis provided by the City does not provide adequate information to members of the public to understand how this draconian action is justified. Moreover, there is no evidence that the numerous protections in the City’s ordinance, now proposed to be eliminated through a cursory process without consideration of the public policy implications or environmental impacts, have ever hampered the production of affordable housing in the City of Los Angeles in any meaningful way. Most important, the City claims that its action in repealing its second dwelling unit ordinance is exempt from environmental review. It is not. Repeal of the existing Second Dwelling Unit ordinance is not exempt from CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 does not apply. The primary justification for exemption offered by the City is Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which states: “[t]his division does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code.” Public Resources Code Section 65852.2 relates to California law on second dwelling units.1 “In keeping with general principles of statutory construction, exemptions are construed narrowly and will not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms. [Citations.] Strict construction allows CEQA to be interpreted in a manner affording the fullest possible environmental protections within the reasonable scope of statutory language. [Citations.] It also comports with the statutory directive that exemptions may be provided only for projects which 1 Public Res. Code § 65852.1 relates to senior housing, and is inapplicable to the issues presented here. Planning and Land Use Management Committee June 6, 2016 Page 3 have been determined not to have a significant environmental effect. [Citations.]” Cal. Farm Bureau Fed’n. v. Cal. Wildfire Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App. 4th 173 (quoting County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966.) “Statutory language is not considered in isolation. Rather, we instead interpret the statute as a whole, so as to make sense of the entire statutory scheme.” Bonnell v. Medical Bd. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1261 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the City were proposing to adopt an ordinance to implement state law, the cited exemption would clearly apply. But the City is not proposing to adopt an ordinance implementing AB 1866. The action now proposed is to change existing City standards and allow development on virtually all residentially zoned parcels in the City by repealing an existing ordinance. In the absence of a local second dwelling unit ordinance, the City will be required to use the state default standards. By the plain language of Public Resources Code 21080.17, the City’s proposed action is not exempt from environmental review, because the action is not “the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of . Section 65852.2.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080.17 (emphasis added). The City’s extremely broad interpretation would dramatically expand the scope of the exemption, as if the legislature intended the exemption to apply to ordinances that related in any way to state law on second dwelling units. Had the legislature so intended, it could easily have drafted the statute more broadly. For example, knowing that many cities had existing second dwelling unit ordinances, the legislature could have included actions in its exemption that repeal local ordinances in order to allow cities to change to the state default standards.