• L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce
• L.A. County Auditor/Controller’s Office
• L.A. City Controller’s Office
• L.A. Mr’s Office
• AARP
• Board of Education - LAUSD Student Parent
• Board of Education - LAUSD Student Parent
• 10th District PTSA
• 31st District PTSA
• Associated General Contractors of CA
• BREATHE California
• LA/Orange County  Building Trades
• American Institute of Architects
• California Taxpayers’ Association – Vacant
• Envtal/Civil Rights Group – Vacant

1. Organizations that had not fulfilled their responsibility to nominate a representative to the BOC.
2. The needs for broader representation considering changes since the last time BOC membership was examined (in 2001).

The following article, written by Paul Hastings Partner Mitch Menzer and originally printed in the Stay Current newsletter published by Paul Hastings, details the institutional changes at the L.A. Department of City Planning—a wholesale reshuffling of depleted staff resources that will directly affect all developments making their way through the city planning process. Quite simply, these changes are the fulfillment of long-promised, consequential city development process reforms.

The Los Angeles Department of City Planning recently announced an ambitious and potentially far-reaching reorganization based on two principles: First, entitlement projects will be staffed by a single Planning Department staff member who will handle all the entitlements work on a project, from advising the applicant before the case is filed, through the public hearings, and to issuing the final sign-offs for building permits. Second, all of the Planning Department’s case processing will take place within one of four Geographic Divisions organized within the Community Planning Bureau in order to allow staff members to focus more closely on particular communities. The department-wide change follows the first step in the geographic reorganization that began during the summer of 2008 and included the San Fernando Valley area.

Currently, the Planning Department processes cases using a centralized structure in which certain types of cases, such as tract maps, variances, or conditional use permits are processed by specialized units according to the type of entitlement sought. For example, all subdivision cases are handled by a single unit, without regard to the geographic location of the project. Variances requested by the same applicant would be handled by another office. A zone change required for the same project would be handled by yet another unit in the Planning Department.

While this centralized system allows planners to develop expertise in a particular type of entitlement, it has been criticized for being time-consuming and inefficient, requiring separate and sometimes redundant reviews by multiple planners for a single project, and often frustrating applicants who are required to deal with multiple points of contact within the Planning Department.

The new organizational structure employs a decentralized approach to case processing in which a single planner will handle all entitlements for a project from beginning to end. Instead of separating cases by type of entitlement, one planner will be responsible for all entitlements on a case. The Planning Department believes this approach will result in a more efficient case processing system.

Cases will be assigned to a Geographic Division based on the location of the project. For example, a project located in Westwood would be assigned to the West Harbor Geographic Division and the Westside Subgeographic Section. By organizing around geographic regions, the Planning Department expects planners to gain a breadth and depth of knowledge about a particular community, which it believes will ensure high-quality, localized project review in all regions.

Case Processing and the Community Planning Bureau

Case processing will now take place within the Community Planning Bureau’s four Geographic Divisions, each of which will be led by a Senior City Planner. Each Geographic Division (Valley, Central, West/Harbor, and South/East) will handle all projects lying within its boundaries. Each Geographic Division will be assigned a Zoning Administrator, who will be the decision maker for its zoning administration cases and will act as Deputy Advisory Agency for subdivision cases.

The four Geographic Divisions will be further divided into 17 Subgeographic Sections, each of which will be headed by a City Planner.

The only cases not processed by the Community Planning Bureau will be those handled by the Expedited Processing Division or the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone section of the Office of Historic Resources.

CEQA/Environmental Review

In addition to handling all entitlements required for a particular case, planners will also be responsible for conducting basic environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Thus, planning staff will handle all Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations. However, the citywide Environmental Review Division, which will be housed within the Community Planning Bureau, will continue to review all Environmental Impact Reports and will oversee the consistent application of CEQA policies in all areas.

Plans and Policy

Planning staff within each Geographic Division will also work on major planning efforts applicable to its Geographic Division, such as Community Plan Updates, Specific Plans, and any locally specific overlays, such as Community Design Overlay Districts.

However, policy programs that are citywide in scope will not be managed by these geographically based planning staff, but will be handled by the new Office of Citywide Policy within the Citywide Planning Bureau. For example, periodic updates of General Plan elements or the adoption of citywide policy matters (such as the Industrial Land Use policy or the comprehensive revision of the City’s sign ordinance) will be managed by the Office of Citywide Policy. The Urban Design Studio will continue its present function and will be part of the Citywide Planning Bureau, as will the Office of Historic Resources.

Implementation

Implementation of the new organizational structure will proceed in three phases, from May 2010 to January 2011. From May 2010 through July 2010, Planning Department staff will receive the new assignments and begin training for their new responsibilities. During Phase Two, from mid-July through September 2010, staff members will transition to their new assignments, and some cases that are in the early stages of review will be transferred to the appropriate Geographic Division. Finally, Phase Three, lasting from October 2010 to January 2011, will consist of a final round of training and oversight.

Read the full article, here.

Among those that qualified are a massive water bond, marijuana legalization and an $18 annual vehicle license fee to support state parks. Here's the list of those that qualified and those that are pending (for more information click here):

November 2010 Statewide Ballot Measure

Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures

Bond Measure

SBx7 2. (Chapter 3, 2009), Cogdill.

Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010

Initiative Statute

1377. (09-0024. Amdt. #1S) - Final Random Sample Update - 03/24/10

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed.

Summary Date: 09/21/09 | Qualified: 03/24/10 | Signatures Required: 433,971

Proponents: Richard Seib Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones (510) 208-4554 

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0024.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment

1380. (09-0027) - Final Random Sample Update - 05/05/10

Redistricting of Congressional Districts.

Summary Date: 10/23/09 | Qualified: 05/05/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponent: Charles T. Munger, Jr. votersfirstactforcongress@gmail.com

Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs. (09-0027.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

1414. (09-0063, Amdt.#1NS) - Final Random Sample Update - 06/22/10

Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services.

Summary Date: 12/16/09 | Qualified: 06/22/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponents: Joshua Shaw, Christopher K. McKenzie, and James N. Earp

Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. Prohibits the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Significant constraints on state authority over city, county, special district, and redevelopment agency funds. As a result, higher and more stable local resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in state resources, resulting in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues. (09-0063.)

Initiative Statute

1421. (09-0072) - Final Random Sample Update - 06/10/10

Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles.

Summary Date: 12/29/09 | Qualified: 06/10/10 | Signatures Required: 433,971

Proponent: Joseph L. Caves (916) 558-1516

Establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund. Requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect wildlife and natural resources. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Requires annual independent audit and review by citizen's oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from the imposition of a surcharge on the VLF to be used mainly to fund state parks and wildlife conservation programs. Potential state savings of up to approximately $200 million annually to the extent that the VLF surcharge revenues were used to reduce support from the General Fund and other special funds for parks and wildlife conservation programs. Reduction of about $50 million annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use fees. These revenue losses could potentially be offset by increases in other types of state park user fees and revenues. (09-0072.)

Initiative Statute

1454. (09-0104) - Final Random Sample Update - 06/22/10

Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.

Summary Date: 02/07/10 | Qualified: 06/22/10 | Signatures Required: 433,971

Proponent: Thomas W. Hiltachk (916) 442-7757

Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. (09-0104.)

Initiatives Pending Signature Verification

1394. (09-0048, Amdt. #1S) - Full Check Update - 06/17/10

Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/23/09 | Full Check Deadline: 07/28/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponent: Lance H. Olson (916) 442-2952

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Applies only to legislators first elected after the measure is passed. Provides that legislators elected before the measure is passed continue to be subject to existing term limits. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments. (09-0048)

1408. (09-0057) - Random Sample Update - 06/23/10 - 4:30 PM

Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/09/09 | Random Sample Deadline: 07/05/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponents: James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis (510) 346-6200

Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the state budget from lowering the legislative vote requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction in state costs related to compensation of legislators in years when the budget bill is passed after June 15. (09-0057.)

1412. (09-0058, #1NS) - Random Sample Update - 06/23/10 - 4:30 PM

Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income. Initiative Statute.

Summary Date: 12/14/09 | Random Sample Deadline: 07/05/10 | Signatures Required: 433,971

Proponents: Robin Johansen and Karen Getman (510) 346-6200

Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years. Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll- and sales-based income calculation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

Annual state revenue increase from business taxes of about $1.7 billion when fully phased in, beginning in 2011-12. (09-0058.)

1441. (09-0093) - Random Sample Update - 06/23/10 - 4:30 PM

Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 01/22/10 | Random Sample Deadline: 06/30/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponent: Allan Zaremberg c/o Steve Lucas (916) 446-6752

Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to majority vote. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potentially major decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters. (09-0093.) (Full Text

1451. (09-0107) - Random Sample Update - 06/23/10 - 4:30 PM

Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Summary Date: 02/05/10 | Random Sample Deadline: 07/16/10 | Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponent: Daniel Lowenstein c/o Fredric D. Woocher (310) 576-1233

Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several million dollars every ten years. (09-0107.) (Full Text)

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom recently attended Cirque du Soleil and other events, and he will write up those tickets on his city's "Form 700." Doing so will ensure that Newsom doesn't run afoul of ethics laws designed to reassure the public that politicians are not bought by gift-bearing corporations and rich patrons.

Tony Winnicker, Newsom's communications director, explains, "There's almost never a time when the mayor appears in public when he's not in some way carrying out an official duty, so in many respects he's never really off duty as mayor." But the rules are so strict, Winnicker says, "To be candid, we probably overreport."

When several elected officials from San Diego City Hall attended that city's two Super Bowls, despite the major civic aspects to these huge events, each politician bought his own ticket. Stacey Fulhorst, executive director of San Diego's Ethics Commission, says simply: "They pay for their tickets."

When Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn attended the Oscars in 2003, he paid $400 of the $500 price, getting a $100 discount he duly reported as a gift. When he was thinking of attending the Grammy Awards in 2004, he asked the City Ethics Commission if it was okay for him to buy the costly tickets, using his "officeholder" account — money he raised from supporters. It wasn't, and he didn't.

In this context, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's behavior occupies a unique, new spot in the annals of political ethics and freebies in California.

Villaraigosa has very quietly accepted — and even angled for — free tickets to as many as 80 pricey events, then failed to report all but one of them, as well as failed to keep records of his actions or the sources of this largesse.

It is not known who gave him the tickets, or the precise number of these events Villaraigosa actually attended, although it is known that he frequently did show up. The 80 events, which appear on the mayor's private official schedule, were recently sent by Villaraigosa to the Ethics Commission amid an outcry from the public over his freebies. The Weekly obtained a copy of the list. Click here to see the Weekly's exclusive ticket-price values of Mayor Villaraigosa's 80 freebies.

According to L.A. Weekly's calculations, Villaraigosa has taken tickets worth $50,000, and perhaps as much as $100,000 — a staggering amount for an American politician at any level, and more than he could cover with his $223,000 salary and extensive family obligations.

The top-end value of those tickets is impossible to determine because, as the mayor's office admitted in a Los Angeles Times article June 12 by Phil Willon, Villaraigosa failed to keep track of his free tickets for the past five years. If true, there is no way to know whether he took single tickets or frequently received multiple tickets to also accommodate dates and family members.

If he did in fact take two or three tickets to events, the value could rise substantially, perhaps reaching or topping $100,000.