Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Today we are pleased to report that the LA County Board of Supervisors voted NOT TO PROCEED with the proposed “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” parcel tax measure. This is a big victory for the business community, and indeed for all of the diverse stakeholders who ultimately concluded that too many problems remained with the proposal. BizFed’s Water Quality Parcel Tax Working Group, chaired by Mike Lewis, Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality, has engaged in months of detailed and painstaking work on this issue. While we appreciate the good-faith efforts of the Department of Public Works to address our various concerns (and they did make some improvements), far too many problems remained. (A copy of our talking points are attached, which detail the substantive problems that were never resolved.)
THANK YOU to the broad and diverse group of BizFed members and others who joined with our BizFed Coalition to speak out at hearings, in Supervisors’ offices, in writing, in the press, and on the phone to make sure the voice of the business community was heard!
Here is a summary of the joint motion offered by Supervisors Molina and Knabe and seconded by Supervisor Antonovich, which passed by a 4-1 vote:
· The Board of Supervisors shall close the Protest Hearing and not proceed with the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure at this time.
· Instructs the LA County Chief Executive Officer to send a letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting that the Board work with DPW and the cities in the County to educate the public about storm water pollution.
· Instruct the CEO and DPW to continue to work with the business community, school districts, and non-profits to address their concerns.
· Direct the CEO to report back regarding the necessary steps the County must take should the Board decide to place this item on a general election ballot, and determine potential future election dates, with the goal of either the June 2014 or November 2014 ballot, to ensure transparency to the public.
· Instruct DPW to provide the Board with quarterly status reports, the first of which being in 90 days, including the status of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's implementation and enforcement of the MS4 permit and a report of all existing revenues that could be used for storm water pollution compliance.
· Instruct DPW to designate a staff person within the department to act as the Unincorporated Storm Water Manager, who will report quarterly on storm water compliance in the unincorporated areas.
(Note: Supervisor Antonovich ultimately voted against the motion because he believes storm water cleanup is a federal and state, and not a county, responsibility.)
One key problem with the “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” proposal was the insistence that it be pursued as a Proposition 218 fee, which blocked the County’s ability to develop a more fair, effective, efficient approach. (For example, existing regulated permit holders, property owners already paying for 100% mitigation, and other categories of property cannot legally be exempted from fees under a Prop 218 process.) The motion passed today makes it crystal clear that, should anything move forward at a future date, it must go to a general election ballot, which opens the door to more fair, effective, win-win solutions to address storm water pollution.
Please take a moment to thank the LA County Board of Supervisors for their leadership. Send them each a quick note like this: “I join BizFed in thanking you for stopping the ‘Clean Water, Clean Beaches’ parcel tax from moving forward. Your show of leadership today protects us from paying for a flawed plan and paves the way for a future, collaborative process to develop a fair and effective solution that could earn the broad support necessary to actually solve the problem.” Here are their email addresses:
- Supervisor Gloria Molina, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, MarkRidley-Thomas@bos.lacounty.gov
- Supervisor Zev Yaroslakvy, email@example.com
- Supervisor Don Knabe, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Supervisor Michael Antonovich, email@example.com
The challenge of complying with regional, state, and federal storm water requirements isn’t going away, and the Board clearly expects continued dialogue seeking to address the problem, so BizFed will continue to stay engaged. Today’s victory demonstrates the effective voice we can have when the business community stands together. Congratulations!
Tracy Rafter, CEO
BizFed, Los Angeles County Business Federation
A Grass Roots Alliance of 100 Top LA County Business Groups
Mobilizing Over 185,000 Businesses
Synopsis From Andrew Wolfberg (Member Pacific Palisades Community Council and Land Use Committee).Land-use zoning may be able to reduce crime in urban areas, study findsUsing zoning laws to shape the type of development and activity that occur in a neighborhood may be one way to reduce crime in urban areas, according to a new RAND Corporation study.Studying high-crime areas in the city of Los Angeles, researchers found that city blocks that included both residential and commercial zoning purposes experienced less crime than nearby blocks zoned primarily for commercial purposes. Crime was lowest in blocks zoned for residential-only uses, even in relatively high crime neighborhoods.The study found that single-use commercially zoned blocks in Los Angeles have crime rates that are 45 percent higher than similar blocks that include residential uses."At least in the case of a city like Los Angeles, zoning matters -- an important fraction of reported crime is associated with the kind of zoning on a city block," said James M. Anderson, the study's lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "These results suggest both researchers and policymakers should pay more attention to the ways in which zoning and other land-use policies can affect crime."Policymakers have long debated the effect that city planning and zoning can have on crime. Some experts have urged diverse uses of land in order to create an urban environment that encourages "eyes on the street" to deter crime.But there has been relatively little objective research designed to test these theories and most of the studies that have occurred have focused on older cities in the eastern United States.The study by Anderson, co-principal investigator John MacDonald of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues uses stronger scientific methods than previous studies and focuses on a younger city -- Los Angeles-- that has land-use patterns that are more typical of where urban growth is occurring today. The results are published in the February edition of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.Researchers examined the relationship between land-use law, the built environment and crime using detailed block-level crime information from July 2010 to January 2011 and detailed observations about 205 blocks in eight relatively high-crime areas in Los Angeles. In addition, researchers conducted a separate analysis of the relationship between changes in land-use zoning and crime in all neighborhoods in Los Angeles from 1994 to 2010.The central finding of the study is that blocks in the study area that include both residential and commercial zoning uses experienced less crime than blocks that are zoned for primarily commercial purposes.Overall, crime was lowest on blocks zoned for residential-only uses, even in relatively high crime neighborhoods. Researchers say the finding suggests that efforts to reduce crime by introducing commercial activities in residential areas are probably misguided.The study also found that when neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles undergo some change in zoning, mostly toward residential uses, crime drops more than it does in neighborhoods with comparable crime trends before the zoning change. In these cases, crime dropped by about 7 percent on average, mostly as a result of fewer automobile-related property crimes.This finding is consistent with the apparent crime-reducing effects of residential development that was found in the first study, researchers say."Our findings suggest that strategic decisions about zoning could be part of the overall crime prevention strategy in urban areas," MacDonald said. "However, our findings are based on one city and should be replicated by additional studies."Researchers suggest it would be good to test the study's conclusions with a small-scale experiment in which a limited set of proposed zoning changes could be permitted randomly to see if the benefits of zoning changes reduce crime in neighborhoods.The city blocks examined in the study were drawn from the communities of Boyle Heights, Highland Park, Hollywood, San Pedro, South Los Angeles, Southeast Los Angeles, West Adams and Westlake.###Support for the study was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Public Health Law Research program. Other authors of the study are Ricky Bluthenthal of the University of Southern California and J. Scott Ashwood of RAND.The project was conducted within the RAND Safety and Justice Program, which conducts public policy research on corrections, policing, public safety and occupational safety.
|Having trouble viewing this email? Click here|
Presented by YOUR FIRM NAME HERE!
Mr. Caverly is a seasoned real estate private equity investor with over 20 years of direct and platform real estate investing experience. Prior to joining EVOQ Properties, Mr. Caverly founded a real estate consulting, advisory, and principal investing firm, 2120 Partners, focused on fundraising, operational and investing strategies for existing real estate platforms and institutional and high net worth investors. Mr. Caverly was previously a Principal at O’Connor Capital Partners where he opened and headed all West Coast operations for the firm. Mr. Caverly also held senior positions with Security Capital Group in Chicago and Tishman Speyer in London where he was the head of European acquisitions for Tishman’s core and opportunistic funds. While in London, Mr. Caverly cofounded Centric Telecom, a real estate technology company sponsored by Goldman Sachs and Providence Equity Partners. Mr. Caverly began his career at Citigroup Real Estate in New York. Mr. Caverly holds a BA from Harvard University and received his MBA from Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Mr. Caverly is a frequent panel speaker and an active member of numerous real estate organizations.
The 2013 AIA|LA City Leaders Breakfast Series
a. Jim Jacobsen – Founding Partner, Industry Partners
March 8 (8am) :: Clive Wilkinson Architects
b. Martin Caverly – CEO, EVOQ Properties
March 15 (8am) :: Alston & Bird LLP
c. Randy Johnson – Executive Vice President, Brookfield Residential
Friday, May 10 (8am) :: Location TBD
d. Janet Marie Smith – Sr. VP, Planning & Development, Los Angeles Dodgers
Thursday, May 16 (8am) :: Dodger Stadium
e. Christopher Rising – President & COO, Rising Realty Partners
Thursday, May 23 (8am) :: Johnson Fain
f. Jim Cowell, PE – Vice President, Facilities, CalTech
June 7 (8am) :: Rios Clementi Hale Studios
g. Martha Welborne, FAIA – Executive Director, Countywide Planning, METRO
November 1 (8am) :: Location TBD
h. Wayne Ratkovich - President & CEO, The Ratkovich Company
November 15 (8am) :: Location TBD
i. Michael Govan – Director, LACMA
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Mayor's Office of Contractor Relations and the Office of Small Business invites you and your members to participate in a City Sponsored Procurement Matchmaking Event on March 21 from 12 noon to 5pm at the Roy A. Anderson Recreation Center in the Expo Center. This event is open to public agencies and private companies who buy and sell commodities and services.Please register at the following site http://bit.ly/TH0Oce.Registration will close on March 15th. If you are matched to a buyer/supplier you will receive your schedule by close of business March 18th. If you are not matched, please feel free to come as there will be agencies and service providers in the exhibition area. If you would like exhibition space please contact Kecia Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please make sure to indicate the NAIC codes and descriptive words for the commodities/services you are seeking or offering. Registration opens at 11:00 amWe will schedule the appointments for 15 minute increments from 1 to 4:30 pm. Parking is provided and there will be food trucks outside.Please contact Kecia via email if any questions.
Monday, March 4, 2013
-------- Original message --------
Subject:City of LA Election Day is Tomorrow, March 5th-- Michelle’s Awesome City of LA Voter Guide
From:Michelle Garakian <email@example.com>
Michelle’s Awesome LA Voter Guide
March 5, 2013
Heyo! And we’re back. Have you received like a billion political mailers in your mailbox in the past two weeks? Then you live in LA and we have a big ‘ole election coming up next week on Tuesday, March 5th. To be clear, next week are the primaries and the general election is May 21st. What does that mean? For example, there are many candidates running to be Mayor of LA. Next week, your votes will determine the top two contenders. There will be a brief period where you will receive many more mailers, people knocking at your door at dinnertime and a barrage of commercials, and then you’ll return to the polls on May 21st to determine the winner. The same goes for those City Council districts that have a large candidate pool.
On to the more important question you may be asking yourself: Why should I give a shit about this election? There are eight City Council seats open, an election to select a City Attorney, City Controller, multiple LAUSD School Board seats, the LA Community College Board of Trustees, a ballot measure and of course, a Mayoral contest. Essentially, there are some big decisions to be made and by not paying attention to these seemingly unimportant elections could result in a crappy person representing your district. You don’t want that.
As you know, this voter guide has become somewhat of a tradition and who am I to ruin Christmas. People will disagree with me. To that end, I encourage you to do your own research. Also, this voter guide will not be weighing in on the school board races (though, I like Monica Garcia in district 2) nor the LA Community College Board of Trustee races (also I favor Tom Oliver for District 6). There are a lot of publications out there with endorsement slates such as the LA Times, Downtown News, LA Sentinel, etc. Do some comparisons and determine which candidate appeals to you. Lastly, this guide took me forever to do. I actually finished the damn thing last night and my computer crashed causing me to lose half the data, arg!!! If you do pass it on, give me props and feel free to forward the guide, post on facebook, link to twitter, et al.
Mayor: Eric Garcetti
For those that know me, I’ve been hyping this dude since 2006. I’ve worked in or adjacent to city government for a long time and during this time, I’ve had the pleasure of working with Eric Garcetti and his office on a variety of exciting and bold policies for the City of LA. During his six year tenure as City Councilor and President of the City Council, he’s championed funding for the Affordable Housing to help folks gain access to more workforce housing in LA and spearheaded various environmental initiatives from the largest Green Building ordinance in the nation to recently help pass the largest urban solar program in the nation, the Solar Feed-in Tariff.
These are some of the big picture things I can point to, but everyday he is working tirelessly to improve the quality of life for Angelenos by working to create more parks in the city, or after school programs in his district or limit gang activity or create more municipal oversight such as working on needed pension reform. He’s also created more access to City Government by empowering members of his community through leadership programs and local neighborhood councils. As a business advocate, he’s working towards eliminating bureaucracy around permitting and building in the city as well as attempting to eliminate gross receipts taxes for local businesses. All and all, he gets shit done and the LA Times thinks so too because they endorsed him for Mayor. He’s also got the endorsement of Sierra Club and National Organization for Women (NOW), which is telling with two women in the race.
This city is a unique period in its existence. Communities are becoming revitalized and walkable. Biking and public transportation are prioritized and used. We’re brimming with cutting edge art and exciting events that bring people together and unite communities around good causes. It’s really exciting to live here because things are happening very organically. We need a mayor who is an innovative and intellectual thinker; someone who can harness all this goodness and capitalize on it. We all see the change, but in order to keep the momentum, we need to ensure we’re moving in the right direction. There are some excellent candidates in the race to become LA’s next Mayor, but only Eric Garcetti is poised to lead the way forward.
City Controller: Indifferent
The City Controller has the ability to identify waste fraud and abuse and audit a department but has little authority to follow up. In fact, the Council moved to implement a rate payer advocate which undermined the position of the controller but also showed how sometimes totally irrelevant this position is. I guess it’s good to have a controller for the city however it really depends on the personality. Laura Chick was feared and admired because she handled business and put everybody on blast. None of the candidates in this race has inspired me to take a position. The LA Times and others endorse Ron Galprin and lots of unions support Dennis Zine. Galprin seems better than the two to me but eh...
City Attorney: Mike Feuer
This is a total no brainer. Prior to entering into public office, Mike Feuer ran Bet Tzedek Legal Services, one of the nation's most highly regarded providers of legal services to the poor. He served as City Councilor of LA many years ago and has most recently finished a stint as a State Assemblymember where he has championed transportation, public safety and environmental policies. He’s tough, smart and a great negotiator, just the person LA needs to navigate the tough waters ahead. I’ve had the pleasure of working with his office for many years and it has continually been a rewarding experience to work with an elected official who remains dedicated, humble and has the tenacity to get the job done without sacrificing his integrity.
Los Angeles City Council. Oh, you don’t know what district you are in? Go here put your address in the Neighborhood Resources line and voila, all the info you need at your disposal.
CD 1: Jose Gardea
Ok. This is my council district and I’m pretty hyped on this race because it’ll directly impact my neighborhood. Gardea has acted as chief of staff to City Councilmember Ed Reyes for many years. He has first-hand knowledge of this district from helping constituents balance communities through improved housing, transportation infrastructure, increased public safety and more green space. Both Gardea and Reyes have a great reputation in City Council on smart planning and environmental measures like revitalizing the LA River to a world class recreation area. Cedillo may have the support of everybody and his mother but I don’t see any community support for him and that is very telling. Lastly and most importantly to me and my neighborhood, Gardea has firmly come out against the Barlow Hospital Development in Elysian Park which would put almost 900 units of housing in Elysian Park with no plan for parking or transportation options. It’s gross to even consider this large of a project in one of the city’s most amazing urban parks. Gardea is the best guy for CD 1.
CD 3: Bob Blumenfield
This one is also a no brainer. Bob Blumenfield was Chief of Staff for the well respected though recently defeated Congressmember Howard Berman. Together, they represented this part of the valley with much aplomb. Blumenfield decided to step out and run for CA Assembly and he did a terrific job focusing on budget cutting in Sacramento. As a long time environmentalist he will be good for this usually conservative district which balks at any environmental overtures. He’s supported by the LA Times and the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters. He’s your man if you live in this district.
CD 5: Paul Koretz
Koretz is a good guy on the city council. In all my dealings with his office since the beginning of his tenure, he has revealed himself an honest broker with the best intentions of the city and his district. He vehemently supports and advocates for animal welfare issues and environmental policies and initiatives. He enjoys a lot of city wide support from business, labor, community and press, etc.
CD 7: Felipe Fuentes, I guess
I’m not really jazzed on this guy but nobody else of substance is running in this district.
CD 9: Staying out of this race till after the primaries
There are like a million people running in this race. I’m going to stand by and let the voters determine who should be in the run off then make a decision. Though, I am leaning towards Dave Roberts. He was just recently endorsed by the LA Times and I’m sure will get a lot more love after the primaries.
CD 11: Mike Bonin
Mike Bonin is a good successor to popular City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl. He’s been a chief aide to Rosendahl for almost 8 years and knows this district like a baby knows its mom. He cares a lot about the environment, hence the Sierra Club endorsement, and works hard to ensure that district concerns are being addressed in detail. I have enjoyed working with him and his office over the course of my career and know he would do right by the residents and businesses of his district.
CD 13: Matt Szabo
Like CD 9 there are A LOT of folks running to represent this district. I mean A LOT. If you live in this district, I can’t imagine the amount of mailers you are getting in one day, probably enough to reconstitute a redwood in your backyard. There are a lot of great candidates running in this race, from Mitch O’Farrell to Josh Post to Emile Mack to Alex DeCampo and John Choi. All have certain traits and qualities that would make a good councilmember but I think Matt Szabo is head and shoulders above them all. For the past eight years, Matt has been the braintrust at City Hall. He has mediated and negotiated some of the most pressing issues this city has faced. He has been paramount to the effort to reach the city’s renewable goals by 2020. He has spearheaded important public safety and affordable housing initiatives and worked towards syncing the city’s traffic lights. He’s a strong, behind-the-scenes player with a reputation for being both respected and feared. Most importantly he is incredibly tenacious. If he says he is going to do something, it will happen and then some. And trust me, this comes in handy when advocating for your district. Garcetti has worked tireless to make this district terrific but we need to continue the momentum. Matt has the clout and know how to bring real and lasting changes to CD 13 like expanding transit opportunities and creating more open space while keeping a keen focus on the little things that make this district great.
CD 15: Joe Buscaino
Joe is a good guy. He was just elected in a special election last year when long time Councilwoman Janice Hahn moved on to the US Congress. Since being elected in an underdog race, he’s really picked up the ropes. Further, he’s exercised a nice degree of independence which is always refreshing. He needs a bit more time to grow into this position.
Prop A: Half cent sales tax increase- Hmmmm…
So this one is really a toughie. The organization that I work for is supporting it because it does not put the tax burden on business alone and it will maintain standards of public safety that have helped keep crime rates low in the city. However, the breadth of mayoral and council candidates opposes this. Though, it may be due to political jockeying rather than true intent, given that said candidates would have a huge budget monkey off their back when they assume public office if this measure passes. There are two issues at hand: One is that most of the city revenue goes towards public safety, approximately 70% I think, so with looming deficits in the next two years, there will be a major impact to the LAPD and LAFD and cuts to needed repairs and maintenance. Two, is the issue of union negotiations. The LA Times states it better than I, “A related problem with the timing of Proposition A is that the generous 2007 contracts with public employee unions expire next year, setting up a crucial round of negotiations. As Santana's budget projections show, the city's labor costs — particularly its obligations on pensions and retiree healthcare — are likely to cause deficits even if voters raise the sales tax; the shortfalls two, three and four years from now are expected to be up to 50% larger than the one in the coming year. By filling the short-term hole in the city budget, a tax hike now would dim the prospects of city leaders seeking, let alone winning, the concessions from unions on pay and benefits that the city badly needs for the long term.” In a nutshell, this proposition is a half-assed short term solution that will barely put the city in the black for fewer than two years, then we’re back to larger deficits. Unless we deal intelligently with pension reform, we’ll continue to face this problem. I will most likely vote no on this issue but you may value the quality of public safety in this city and see this measure as a way to stave off machete-sized cuts.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
is scheduled for formal consideration at City Planning Commission
(CPC) on Thursday, March 14, 2013. Planning staff will make a
presentation followed by public comment. Prior to CPC, the Plan will
also be presented at the Harbor Area Planning Commission on Tuesday,
March 5, 2013 for review and comment; this is an informational meeting
and no decision will be made. Both meetings will be held in San Pedro,
bringing the decision-making process closer to the community as many
community members have suggested over the years. Informational Meeting
Harbor Area Planning Commission (agenda is attached)
March 5, 2013, 4:30 p.m.
Harbor Commission Board Room
455 S. Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 Formal Hearing
City Planning Commission
March 14, 2013, after 8:30 a.m.
Boys and Girls Club
100 W. 5th Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 Improving the community’s quality of life is central to the Plan,
which has several major themes. These themes include expanding housing
opportunities, strengthening the community’s connection to the
waterfront, and preserving industrial areas for local jobs.
Sustainability goals and policies, such as creating more
pedestrian-friendly environments, improving access to open space, and
fostering a healthy community, are integrated throughout the Plan. Based upon community input following the public hearing in December
2012, some changes have been made to the San Pedro Community Plan.
Among these is the commercial area located at 25th Street and Western
Avenue (subarea 260). The Planning Department has recommended
retaining the existing neighborhood commercial land use designation
and no change is proposed for zoning or height regulations. This
change underscores the importance of the community’s involvement in
the plan update process. Community Plans provide a guide for future land use development. The
Community Plan Update process has been based on engaging the community
in making decisions regarding existing land use, neighborhood and
community issues, and recommendations for future land use changes. A
written recommendation report, which represents a multi-year effort
and dozens of community meetings and community feedback, will be
forwarded for consideration by the Mayor and City Council following
the CPC meeting. Thank you for your continued interest in the San Pedro Community Plan update. We are currently in the process of adding our updated documents to the
website. For more information about the Plan, go to:
http://sites.google.com/site/sanpedrocommunityplan Debbie Lawrence, San Pedro Community Planner, City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
Phone: (231) 978-1163 Email: Debbie.Lawrence@lacity.org
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
To view email as a web page, click HERE.
Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
Effective as of January 1, 2013, new California laws further restrict the scope of indemnity provisions in construction contracts, necessitating that contracts be carefully reviewed. These significant modifications are a result of a growing national effort by contractors and subcontractors to limit their indemnity and defense obligations for work performed on both public and private works projects. One of these new laws voids indemnity provisions in construction contracts that require or "purport to insure or indemnify, including the cost to defend, a general contractor, construction manager, or other subcontractor, by a subcontractor against liability for claims… to the extent the claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the[ir] active negligence or willful misconduct." (Civil Code Section 2782.05). In plain English, these new laws prohibit indemnity provisions that attempt to shift liability or defense obligations for the active negligence of the party to be indemnified.
Subject to very limited exceptions, California's construction contract anti-indemnity statute (Civil Code section 2782) has for many years made broad form indemnity provisions unenforceable by prohibiting a party from requiring indemnity against its own sole negligence or willful misconduct. (Civil Code section 2782(a).) A recent expansion of this law makes clear that indemnity for active negligence is also generally unenforceable for both public and private contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013. These new revisions expressly extend this prohibition to "any contractor, subcontractor or supplier of goods and services." (Civil Code section 2782 (b)(2) and (c)(1).) In other words, a public agency or prime contractor on a public works project cannot require a subcontractor or supplier to indemnify against liability for the active negligence of the public agency and/or the general contractor. In addition, the prime contractor cannot be required to indemnify an owner of a public works project for the active negligence of the owner. (Civil Code section 2782(b)(1).) The same is true in the private contract context - the owner cannot impose on any contractor, subcontractor or supplier an indemnification obligation as a result of the active negligence of the owner. (Civil Code section 2782(c)(1).)
As a result, the indemnity provision in your current contract may not be enforceable and owners, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and material vendors should reassess and modify their current contracts, particularly the indemnity provision(s), in order to bring those contracts in line with the new provisions of Civil Code sections 2782 and 2782.05. Click HERE to view Civil Code section 2782. You may also click HERE to view Civil Code section 2782.05. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the impact of these new laws in greater detail, please feel free to contact me, or alternatively, Raina L. Richter (213.417.5312 or firstname.lastname@example.org).
D. Creighton Sebra
Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
You received this email because you are a member of the Construction and Design Group Email Alert distribution list.If at any point you no longer wish to receive this alert, please forward this email to email@example.com with "Unsubscribe" in the email subject line.Should you wish to add others to the distribution, please email their name, position, company and email address to firstname.lastname@example.org, and we will add them to the distribution list. -------------------------------------------------------Disclaimer: This email is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter and is made available with the understanding that the email does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional services. If legal advice is required, such services should be sought. All rights reserved.Advertising
© 2013 Morris Polich & Purdy LLP-------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
The information contained in this document is intended solely for use by the persons or entities identified above. This electronically transmitted document contains privileged and confidential information including information which may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (213-891-9100) and permanently delete this message without making a copy.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
AGENDA :: AIA|LA Roundtable Discussion on Zoning Code Reform - February 27 (6:00 - 8:00pm) at GENSLER
500 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles CA 90071
- If the zoning code is a map of LA's future, what is the narrative we're trying to tell?
- What is the most effective way to shape the City of LA zoning code reform process?
- How do we modernize and re-evaluate compatibility of land-uses?
- What should the zoning code of the 21st century look like?
- With the primacy of so many other environmental and fiscal considerations, why do we even need to regulate land-use in the first place?
- How do we optimize economic development opportunities?
- How do we incentivize design innovation?
- How do we ensure equitable and accessible placemaking?
- Establishes clear & predictable language
- More effectively implements the Goals & Objectives of the General Plan and Community Plans
- Offers a wider variety of zoning options that protect and/or enhance our communities
- Reflects the diversity of Los Angeles and allows each neighborhood to maintain a distinct sense of place
- Accommodates the City’s current and future needs
- Improves the built environment, economic vitality, & quality of life
- Is an economic development tool that will help shore up the City’s tax base
The project will not: 1) override any existing Specific Plans or Overlays; or 2) result in the wholesale "up-zoning" of the City. Although changes will eventually be pursued in order to implement the new Zoning Code, the proposed work program does not include any amendments to the current Zoning designations. Any future changes will include notifications and public hearings.