[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6624110,"mediaKeyId","2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76","parentId",2767823,"title","Committee denies SAFER appeal; 95‑unit Van Nuys project keeps categorical exemption and approvals","audioSeconds",487,"startMs",7301000,"endMs",7788000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76&start=7301&end=7788","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76/thumbnail_7301000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6624110/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Committee-denies-SAFER-appeal-95unit-Van-Nuys-project-keeps-categorical-exemption-and-approvals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624110-4a10703896070bf6307881ab10a873ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170773&Signature=SpZBdfzNWxtt9SkrWrWn6PkBYe8-jsJSGLXEIgIuHinTBF30dHwzRk5Y81WAw4k63GGGGEupj2cibrWQUCan3wzTeztG57xyRhXf2naspKswxgtteaYmqPABnj67F9jdoOTxvTUshfdiscS1VPgfZ0Mr6lfevtCgQwxDqYY6luGy8wvrbnkG3TyVgPX8O1t8mOlqRNX8PO3RnuXayFfmyrjTahPL~XIt495W1ICe~icLwdcLKsQjdNSR449CT6MzlHw7Y0wxvxP5x7S~vbObbJdzgM0gqcjdf0fF7vgNz7PIysaQnkopJ1cO-lcI-MDQe0~B1dC5k9nnko~RJ-3mXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-25T15:39:53Z","article","The Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted to deny an appeal from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and to sustain the City Planning Commission’s approval of a categorical Class 32 exemption and three land‑use entitlements for a proposed seven‑story, 95‑unit residential building at 18430–18434 West Vanowen Street in the San Fernando Valley.

SAFER argued that substantial evidence showed the project would create significant impacts to noise, outdoor air quality and indoor air (formaldehyde) risks, and that those \"unusual circumstances\" precluded reliance on a Class 32 exemption. SAFER’s submission included technical analyses alleging construction noise and diesel particulate matter exposures that, in their experts’ view, exceeded CEQA thresholds.

Planning staff recommended denying the appeal. Staff reported that technical reports and mitigation approaches prepared for the project demonstrated the project would not result in significant impacts and that the Class 32 exemption was appropriate. The project team and planning staff said the kinds of health‑risk assessments cited by the appellant are generally required for uses with heavy truck activity (distribution centers), not for residential projects of this type; the project proponent submitted rebuttal materials addressing the appellant’s experts.

After reviewing the record and public testimony, the committee sustained the Planning Commission’s decision. The roll-call vote to deny the appeal and uphold the environmental clearance and entitlements was 4-0. The applicant’s approvals include density‑bonus incentives and waivers, community design overlay compliance and site plan review; the project reserves 11 units for very‑low‑income households and provides 102 parking spaces in the staff‑recommended configuration.

The committee’s action allows the project to proceed through permit finalization and building‑permit processes under the approvals granted by the Planning Commission, subject to any standard permit conditions and requirements in the council file.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Land Use Management Committee - 3/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The committee denied an appeal from SAFER and sustained the Planning Commission’s approval of a categorical CEQA exemption and land‑use approvals for a 95‑unit residential project in Van Nuys (11 units for very low‑income households).","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6624114,"Council committee grants appeals, denies EIR for proposed Runyon Canyon ridgeline home",2903,4329000,7232000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76&start=4329&end=7232","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76/thumbnail_4329000.jpg","/articles/6624114/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-committee-grants-appeals-denies-EIR-for-proposed-Runyon-Canyon-ridgeline-home","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624114-868a522c868ee66e83035ed1c24bce5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170773&Signature=L-tX0C3Az9NSgJjZzHx2LrxI361HtJfIXw-P8o6S-b24mAjhHIFwQP6IEvO9isLThft6DhBSfu16Hjfb4ch~~-4NJpl5PImKUHQXmSL-gELkf0rCjO~ZhZ8EbZn1O~Gqj7Nt3y~JrhGUF5RxyKdY1FYDrgvCtltCRdChI6d6-qCo6DJoRis8JUejtczBy2q2B4Gyf-VZpLkVWjDQCEeBthDA5ay8fXPRuXHS4EOVuNkgfGYSYX0keMjaKlALWHHOTVUAe2sgDfnh1MB3hawSy8rD-zz5MyfjwuYNHOAffokhAr6CYy8jqIASTyDAJDv8TgvQW3BSQuiPTCAYR3wraw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted to grant appeals challenging approvals for a single‑family residence proposed at 3003 Runyon Canyon Road and to deny certification of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. The committee found that required findings for a specific‑plan exception could not be made and that the project conflicted with the Mulholland Scenic Parkway specific plan and related Mulholland design guidelines.

Appellants — including the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) — argued the project failed to comply with state and local fire‑safety regulations, proposed excessive grading and would visibly alter a prominent ridgeline and sensitive parkland. Jamie Hall, representing the Federation, told the committee the project does not comply with minimum State Responsibility Area (SRA) fire regulations and cited attorney general and Board of Forestry opinions that the SRA standards apply when new construction is proposed even if roads predate the rules.

The committee’s written findings described multiple conflicts with the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan, including that the project would not \"assure maximum preservation and enhancement of the parkway's outstanding and unique scenic features,\" would not \"minimize grading,\" and would disturb prominent ridges and topographic features. The committee found that the project's size, location and ground disturbance (planning staff and the applicant cited 12,647 cubic yards of cut and fill after plan revisions) were inconsistent with the specific plan’s purposes and the Mulholland design guidelines.

Supporters of the project, including the property owners and design and engineering consultants, said the design minimizes visual impacts by embedding most of the residence into the hillside, that the project increased fuel-modification areas and that the plan complied with Los Angeles Fire Department requirements. The project team said they withdrew requests for two variances (kitchen in accessory living quarters and a third retaining wall) and reduced grading from earlier designs to the 12,647 figure in their March materials. Retired County fire chief Mike Dyer and the project’s fire and engineering consultants testified that the proposed improvements meet applicable Los Angeles fire department standards and increase defensible space.

After hearing staff reports, appellants, the property owner and public testimony, the committee adopted findings to deny certification of the EIR and to grant the appeals, concluding the specific plan exception findings could not be made and that the project would be detrimental to public welfare, scenic resources and the park. The committee vote to grant the appeals was 4-0.

The committee’s action reverses the South Valley Area Planning Commission’s prior approvals and remands the application to the Planning Department for further processing consistent with the writ referenced in the City Attorney’s report. The record shows significant disagreement among experts on fire access, road turnouts and visibility; the committee resolved those uncertainties by concluding the project did not meet the specific‑plan standards.","The committee granted appeals from conservation groups and denied certification of the EIR for a proposed single‑family house in Runyon Canyon, finding the project could not meet Mulholland Scenic Parkway specific‑plan standards and raised unresolved fire‑safety and aesthetic concerns.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6624118,"Planning OKs 1 San Pedro specific plan and redevelopment of Rancho San Pedro public housing",622,3555000,4177000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76&start=3555&end=4177","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76/thumbnail_3555000.jpg","/articles/6624118/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-OKs-1-San-Pedro-specific-plan-and-redevelopment-of-Rancho-San-Pedro-public-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624118-7515a925ae3487e10422a7f1c0dd2cbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170773&Signature=UlferEJSSWv3QHUyc2Xr2Fbog4eCmp4lk~TqqhnIZfRXkC0xRMIbltEKHOlFcZjkWXtX--~g3q9j2aijdc1qwOJMNVy3nsUxXbSqRcP8KGAU5IkY8WLtoffNkfQblPh9yBCb6RInn8VL4o8kMQxE2wP1QXMZTsA-paVWpSyWu~3JJSZwUcsqx4pd-NxtuL5qGKKbaZ7ifrF9ZdMaVo7clc-PJmnXovCs6yP7dPX6adwCcXzZGRkZV3eCxPpcIHVDkDGd4QhRtBXTAOSuAfDtWReShiWUCcVPLPkKR5o9QbmwgK6PEorZzOdwijWKr6mv0sf9HJuwq2abMD8fcH9WpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The PLUM Committee voted unanimously to approve the Planning Department’s recommendations to establish the 1 San Pedro specific plan and to move forward with entitlements for the phased redevelopment of the Rancho San Pedro public housing complex. The action authorizes resolutions and ordinances to amend the General Plan, change zoning and height districts, and adopt the specific plan and related Community Plan Implementation Overlay amendments.

City Planning staff described the project as a phased redevelopment that could deliver up to 1,553 new residential units, up to 130,000 square feet of commercial space, and approximately 5.3 acres of publicly accessible open space, along with supporting infrastructure and design standards. Planning reported that the specific plan was prepared to utilize the city’s new Chapter 1A zoning code and that a technical corrections memo transmitted to the council file refines certain provisions and the project’s enforcement and monitoring standards.

The committee’s action included findings based on the previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) and the department’s conclusion that no subsequent environmental review was required under CEQA guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164). The committee asked the City Attorney to prepare draft ordinances to: (1) establish the 1 San Pedro specific plan, (2) create a special 1 San Pedro zone in the municipal code, and (3) amend the San Pedro Community Plan Implementation Overlay to remove the project site from the CPIO boundary. The vote was 5-0 in favor (one member absent earlier noted as present for this item), and the matter will proceed to ordinance drafting and future council hearings.

Supporters from the Rancho San Pedro community, labor representatives and the 1 San Pedro Collaborative (National CORE, Century Housing, The Richmond Group and HACLA) urged approval in public comment, emphasizing community-led planning, workforce development commitments, and local hire/job training benefits. Speakers urged the council to honor the community engagement process that shaped the specific plan.

The committee’s approval initiated the ordinance and resolution drafting process; final approval of the specific plan and any implementing ordinances will require subsequent council action.","PLUM approved staff recommendations to adopt the 1 San Pedro specific plan, associated General Plan and zoning changes, and related environmental findings to allow phased redevelopment of Rancho San Pedro into mixed‑use, mixed‑income community.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6624123,"PLUM requests code update to allow single‑stair, six‑story buildings for denser housing",134,3221000,3355000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76&start=3221&end=3355","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76/thumbnail_3221000.jpg","/articles/6624123/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/PLUM-requests-code-update-to-allow-singlestair-sixstory-buildings-for-denser-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624123-fffea3f60de1353fa4e79ba43a76d857/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170773&Signature=i9CbH2Nuaz-HZYqQWW2wJfVU-LawvW0~4p9tFQgRz551nWPnVdDEnEY4TDn6HTz~T5dRQ6Mc6oIS-EZP7H6UurtBXrb-CZX-Bp29NndpzWDlUY9qlmhe9Ko1A0od2Sa7LV9HqxPrejVuvcrmNpmZFt5y36Bqf4BBcDYx3Qiy50NHh1nOQ9NH1VfznNbKDXJG6ke6S8nRje95o4SBtm~8ieiJAOFbT5BCiv~W1ozh0sfxrG00GiI5dLAuIp9oe1E-LxVEsILOGCLTmKXHLvEYYDNE11qBVxjiCUhz0W5AJ17U2il5HnjzcvU79FUCe0K9OJvXbN8XKvipT58KgCz8aA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted to ask city departments to draft modifications to the Los Angeles Building Code that would allow single‑exit (single‑stair) residential buildings up to six stories, and to return recommended code language and related materials for committee review. The committee approved the motion on a 4-0 vote after a brief discussion and with direction to include the Fire Department as a consulting reviewer.

Councilmember Paul Krekorian’s staff described potential cost savings and livability benefits, citing a report that single‑stair designs can reduce development costs and enable larger family-sized units with more light and ventilation. Supporters in the public record — including Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY groups — urged approval, arguing single‑stair allowances would unlock infill parcels and increase housing production.

Labor and building-safety advocates urged caution. The Sheet Metal Workers and the Los Angeles County Building Trades asked the committee to defer changes that could reduce fire-safety margins until a required state study on single-exit stairways under Assembly Bill 835 is completed; they said safety questions remain and urged additional review.

The committee’s action instructs the Department of Building and Safety, in consultation with the Fire Department and Planning Department and with input from livability advocates, to prepare code modifications and related materials for committee consideration within the timeframe specified in the motion. The committee did not adopt final code language; it approved direction for staff work and review.","The PLUM Committee asked City departments to produce building-code modifications to allow single-exit (single‑stair) buildings up to six stories, instructing Planning and Building Safety to consult the Fire Department and return proposals within 90 days.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6624127,"PLUM panel adopts motions to tighten oil-well maintenance rules and align housing streamlining with ED‑1",293,1832000,2125000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76&start=1832&end=2125","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2767823-f1c8d8ce0227bdbbbff78cded8701c76/thumbnail_1832000.jpg","/articles/6624127/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/PLUM-panel-adopts-motions-to-tighten-oil-well-maintenance-rules-and-align-housing-streamlining-with-ED1","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6624127-815d2ac922895357891a85612cafea4f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170773&Signature=DEBON~6F4QEwzfwI9EV5fzVbH7ybGerRMurCY5-ItyqUn8Di5LaWRHNAamg4ZxBbU76sduWrmzXuDkUpov-KzvQr1Xzet0A7JAFwzMiF4oWX4MNfq-e4WJ37SRdX0NW3x8szDBm3K0UNuBA2R84gRjOLqZeyOHIBPFQdtqU1SwcAIsngvesUAVTdzVWt-rQj92QD~FjoQhrNbyXKc3ouIdsKoo0hr59TuAii9denPYZ8z8WBFDZ3HrdAUSJ-WAaL~rycxupvhgGduwwUBkhhpsn7OlTHTq3VLP95eRTUFIBmYjs9T5jMKiNG~on-GIeWmWP8FVx4Ztl3~JO41qDWYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee voted to adopt motions addressing affordable housing streamlining and operations at active and abandoned oil wells, including a motion to move forward on an interim approach to limit or regulate acid “asset maintenance” at wells and amendments to align a housing streamlining ordinance with Executive Directive 1.

The committee approved the package of motions for items 3, 5, 7 and 8 (and item 10) on a 4-0 vote, and later approved a separate related motion on single-stair changes (item 4). The adopted amendments instruct City Planning to update the proposed affordable housing streamlining ordinance to align regulations with the most recent Executive Directive 1 (ED‑1, dated 07/01/2024), to reflect citywide regulations adopted since the Planning Commission transmitted the ordinance in November 2023 (including the Citywide Housing Incentive Program and the Resident Protections Ordinance), and to incorporate the ordinance into the new zoning code (Chapter 1A) in consultation with the City Attorney.

A further instruction adopted by the committee directs the Planning and Housing departments, in consultation with the City Attorney, to develop and implement guidelines ensuring ED‑1 projects comply with the principles of Assembly Bill 686 (as identified in the motion). An amendment from Councilmember Hugo Hernandez requires a 90-day report back on item 8 and asks departments to report on the impact of recent state and local streamlining tools (ED‑1, State Density Bonus, and CHIP) when projects are in close proximity to active, plugged or abandoned oil wells.

The committee’s action followed extensive public testimony about health and safety concerns near oil production sites. Speakers representing Sunrise Movement, Communities for a Better Environment, Black Women for Wellness and the Stand LA coalition described long-term health impacts from living near oil wells and brownfields and urged the committee to move items 3, 5 and 8 forward with amendments. Tyler Earl of Communities for a Better Environment said operators pump \"highly corrosive chemicals, like hydrofluoric acid...\" into the ground and urged passage of item 5. Dr. Zoe Conliff of Black Women for Wellness told the committee the city has received 32 notices of acid maintenance since the city’s phase‑out ordinance was overturned, arguing this demonstrates urgency to limit such operations.

Industry speakers urged caution. Matt Richersham of E&B Natural Resources told the committee that \"well clean outs are a routine maintenance activity\" required to comply with federal underground injection control rules and opposed an interim control ordinance that would prohibit such maintenance. Counsel for Warren requested more robust public outreach and consultation with the industry, saying the city had committed to public engagement in a settlement process.

Committee members instructed staff to return revised ordinance language and technical code changes for further review and to coordinate with the City Attorney on implementation steps. The motions adopted do not themselves change building or zoning code language; they direct departments to prepare and transmit revised Chapter 1 and Chapter 1A ordinances for council consideration and to develop implementation guidelines for ED‑1 projects.

Actions noted in the committee record: the PLUM Committee adopted motions for items 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 (items 1 and 2 were continued). Item 5—concerning interim controls on acid asset maintenance—was adopted as part of the package. The committee separately approved the associated amendments described above and directed a 90-day report back where specified.

The committee’s next steps are for Planning, Housing and the City Attorney to prepare ordinance language and implementation guidelines consistent with the committee’s instructions; those documents will be transmitted to the full City Council for consideration.","Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved motions to amend the affordable housing streamlining ordinance to align with Executive Directive 1, to incorporate changes into the new zoning code, and to advance rules on acid \"asset maintenance\" at oil wells after extensive public comment about health risks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee denies SAFER appeal; 95‑unit Van Nuys project keeps categorical exemption and approvals

Council committee grants appeals, denies EIR for proposed Runyon Canyon ridgeline home

Planning OKs 1 San Pedro specific plan and redevelopment of Rancho San Pedro public housing

PLUM requests code update to allow single‑stair, six‑story buildings for denser housing

PLUM panel adopts motions to tighten oil-well maintenance rules and align housing streamlining with ED‑1