Meeting Date: 07/18/12 06:30 PM
Meeting Type: Regular
Location: Women’s Club, 1749 N. La Brea 90046
BOARD MEETING AGENDA
July 18, 2012 – 6:30 pm
Woman’s Club of Hollywood
1749 North La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Directions: South of Franklin and North of Hollywood Blvd. – Accessibility: Building is accessible through entrance at rear door. Parking: Free Parking is available behind the Woman’s Club on the upper level of the parking lot.
The public is requested to fill out a “Speaker Card” to address the Board on any item of the agenda prior to the Board taking action on an item. Comments from the public on non-agenda and agenda items will be heard during the Public Comment Period and, within the discretion of the presiding officer of the Board, when the respective item is being considered. Comments from the public on other matters not appearing on the Agenda that is within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction will be heard during the Public Comment period. Public comment is limited to 2 minutes per speaker unless waived by the presiding officer of the Board. Agenda is posted for public review: on bulletin boards at the top and bottom of Runyon Canyon Park, and electronically on the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council website ww.hhwnc.org and on the Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment (www.lacityneighborhoods.com). As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability of services, please make your request at least 3 business days (72 hours) prior to the meeting you wish to attend by contacting the Neighborhood Council Project Coordinator at 213-485-1360 or e-mail to [email protected]
POSSIBLE ACTION, INCLUDING A BOARD MOTION AND
VOTING ON THE MOTION.
PROCESS FOR RECONSIDERATION: The Board may reconsider and amend its action on items listed on the agenda if that reconsideration takes place immediately following the original action or at the next regular meeting. The Board, on either of these two days, shall: (1) Make a Motion for Reconsideration and, if approved, (2) hear the matter and Take an Action. If the motion to reconsider an action is to be scheduled at the next meeting following the original action, then two items shall be placed on the agenda for that meeting: (1) A Motion for Reconsideration on the described matter and (2) a Proposed Action should the motion to reconsider be approved. A motion for reconsideration can only be made by a Board member who has previously voted on the prevailing side of the original action taken. If a motion for reconsideration is not made on the date the action was taken, then a Board member on the prevailing side of the action must submit a memorandum to the Secretary identifying the matter to be reconsidered and a brief description of the reason(s) for requesting reconsideration at the next regular meeting. The aforesaid shall all be in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
1. Call to order by President, Anastasia Mann
2. Roll call by Acting Secretary, Scott Campbell
3. Minutes – Review and approve Board minutes from June 20, 2012 meeting (Vote) (5 minutes)
4. President’s Report by Anastasia Mann (20 minutes)
ii.) CD4 –Sharon Shapiro, Field Deputy, Office of Councilmember Tom LaBonge
iii.) CD5 – Jeffrey Ebenstein, Field Deputy, Office of Councilmember Paul Koretz
iv.) CD13 – Angela Motta, Field Deputy, Office of Council President Eric Garcetti
v.) 42nd District-Nicole Carcel, Office of Assemblyman Mike Feuer
vi.) LAPD-Capt. Beatrice Girmala
vii.) First Year of the Bicycle EIR-City Planning
b. Vacant Area 9 Chair. Posted 1/9/12 on website. 60 Day Posting Period ended on 3/10/12.
c. Vacant Youth Chair. Posted 4/26/12. 60 Day Posting Period ended on 6/25/12. Jeff Zarrinnam is the only candidate. POSSIBLE MOTION AND VOTE.
d. Elections Update by Election Committee Chair Moreno & Christine Jerian (IEA)
ii.) Election Registration Open-8/16/12 deadline
iii.) MOTION AND VOTE Re: “Election Stipulation Worksheet”
f. Decide next meeting date-August 15, 2012
5. Vice President’s Report by Orrin Feldman (10 minutes)
6. Treasurer’s Report by Michael Meyer (10 minutes)
a. Approve Monthly Treasurer’s Report. MOTION AND VOTE.
b. DONE’s payment delay for web vendor
c. Update on traffic calming sign program
7. Secretary’s Report by Aaron Rogers (5 minutes)
8. Parliamentarian’s Report by Scott Campbell (5 minutes)
9. Committee Reports (40 minutes)
i. Report by Housing Chair (Robinson)
-Presentation on Community Care Facilities Ordinance by Maria Fisk of LA Coalition for Neighborhoods. (10 minutes).
-Presentation on Community Care Facilities Ordinance by Jeff Christensen of Sober Living Network. (10 minutes).
-Public Comments on this issue (2 minute per speaker time limit).
POSSIBLE MOTION (ATTACHED) AND VOTE.
ii. Reports by Committee Chairs in attendance (Optional)
b. AREA COMMITTEES
i. Reports by Committee Chairs in attendance (Optional)
10. Public Comments – Comments from the public on agenda items and non-agenda items within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to 2 minutes per speaker.
11. Old Business
12. New Business
Item 9ai: Community Care Facilities Motion
The Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council Housing Committee considered the proposed Community Care Facilities final draft ordinance on May 29, 2012. Information provided by the L. A. Coalition for Neighborhoods and the Los Angeles County Sober Living Coalition was considered. Although some group homes are sources of nuisance activity, the draft ordinance is overly broad and the full Board is encouraged to oppose the draft ordinance. Nuisance abatement should be utilized.
Motion and Community Impact Statement
It is hereby resolved the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council opposes the ordinance because:
-The ordinance was originally intended to control problem sober living homes but has expanded to redefine “family” by the number of leases in a household, restricting shared living arrangements by anyone including seniors, the disabled, students and veterans.
-Instead of eliminating nuisance sober living homes, it eliminates housing for everyone.
-The City opposes discrimination against the disabled. Los Angeles must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Limiting disabled housing choices could jeopardize funding provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
-Problem group homes could circumvent the law by having residents sign a single lease.
-Funding guidelines mandate many programs to provide each resident with their own lease.
-Facilities eligible for licensure are not the subject of complaints but would be limited to “two per bedroom” and require additional parking. This would not apply to sober living homes.
-Any two unrelated people on probation or parole would need a Conditional Use Permit to live in any residential structure, including apartment buildings. This would place an undue burden on apartment owners and pose severe public safety risks. The prisoner realignment act puts these people in our neighborhoods and ex-offenders need housing to reduce recidivism.
-The City Planning Commission and the Planning and Land Use Management Committee both failed to properly consider or endorse the proposed ordinance.
-The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the Department of Mental Health, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles and the Housing Department are against the proposal.
-The administrative nuisance abatement procedure is the most direct and cost effective approach to addressing neighborhood concerns should special needs housing contribute to excessive noise, loitering, parking problems or other activities negatively impacting a neighborhood. See Council File No. 074-3427 Motion and Council File No. 11-0262 Final Draft Ordinance
 City Planning Department Report dated January 28, 2010 never considered by PLUM or the City Planning Commission
 City Planner who drafted the law specifically confirms if 70 people are on one lease that would be a legal family under the proposed ordinance [video at 05:05:00]  Disability Rights California detailed legal analysis and article on HUD requirements to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing options or risk loss of federal funding
 Planning report dated March 8, 2012 that was never considered by PLUM Committee – see page four “Regulating Licensed Facilities of Seven Residents and Over”
 Final Draft Ordinance page one “…any residential structure or unit…which houses three or more parolees – probationers” and LA County AB109 Fact Sheet
 City Planning Commission failed to take an action on the proposed ordinance and PLUM submits report to Council without recommendation
 Testimony of LAHSA Director,
Letter from LA County Director of Mental Health,
HACLA Board Resolution Expressing Opposition to the proposed ordinance
 Direct quote from the Planning Department Staff Report dated January 28, 2010 – never considered by the PLUM Committee, the Planning Commission or Council.