Loading...
(Added by Ord. No. 188,088, Eff. 1/24/24.)
A. Objectives. The objectives of this section are to establish uniform citywide procedures, standards, and criteria for reviewing and processing Redevelopment Plan Projects, including Administrative Review, Project Compliance, Project Modification, Project Adjustments, and Redevelopment Plan Amendments in accordance with applicable provisions of the Charter, this Code, City ordinances, state law, and any applicable specific plan, supplemental use district, or other land use regulation adopted by the City.
B. Relationship of the Redevelopment Regulations to City Ordinances.
1. The Redevelopment Regulations are in addition to the provisions of Chapter 1 of this Code and any other relevant City ordinances.
2. Whenever the Redevelopment Regulations conflict with provisions contained in Chapter 1 of this Code or any other relevant City ordinances, the Redevelopment Regulations shall supersede those provisions, unless the applicable Redevelopment Regulations specifically provide otherwise or are amended.
C. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, certain terms and words are defined below. Words and phrases contained in this section and not defined below shall have the meanings set forth in the applicable Redevelopment Plan or Section 12.03 of this Code (with priority given to definitions in the applicable Redevelopment Plan where there is a conflict between the Redevelopment Plan and this Code):
“Community Redevelopment Agency” or “CRA” or “CRA/LA” shall mean the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, which was dissolved on February 1, 2012.
“Community Redevelopment Law” shall mean the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), as amended.
“CRA/LA, a Designated Local Authority” or “CRA/LA-DLA” shall mean the public body formed pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173(c)(3) to serve as the successor agency to the former CRA.
“Historic Resource” shall mean designated or surveyed resources including properties listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, locally designated Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs) and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs); and properties identified as significant per eligibility criteria in SurveyLA and the Community Redevelopment Agency surveys or any subsequent City sanctioned or accepted surveys.
“Lower Income Household” shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Development Guidelines and Controls for Residential Hotels in the City Center and Central Industrial Redevelopment Project Areas, adopted by the former CRA on June 15, 2006.
“Redevelopment Plan” shall mean any of the following redevelopment plans: (i) the Adelante Eastside Redevelopment Project Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 172,514, and as amended; (ii) the Broadway/Manchester Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 170,175, and as amended; (iii) the Central Industrial Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174,978, and as amended; (iv) the City Center Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174,593, and as amended; (v) the Council District 9 Corridors Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 170,807, and as amended; (vi) the Crenshaw Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 158,933, and as amended; (vii) the Crenshaw/Slauson Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 170,734, and as amended; (viii) the Exposition/University Park Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 131,730, and as amended; (ix) the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 175,236, and as amended; (x) the Laurel Canyon Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 180,695, and as amended; (xi) the Mid-City Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 171,064, and as amended; (xii) the Pacific Corridor Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174,549, and as amended; (xiii) the Vermont/Manchester Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 171,065, and as amended; (xiv) the Watts Corridors Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 170,769 and as amended; (xv) the Western/Slauson Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 171,063, and as amended; (xvi) the Westlake Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 172,597, and as amended; and (xvii) the Wilshire Center/Koreatown Redevelopment Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 170,806, and as amended.
“Redevelopment Plan Amendment” shall mean an amendment to a Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City Council by ordinance after the effective date of this ordinance.
“Redevelopment Plan Project” shall mean any proposed development activity within a Redevelopment Project Area with an Unexpired Redevelopment Plan that includes the issuance of a building, grading, demolition, sign or change of use permit. A Redevelopment Plan Project shall not include activity that consists solely of interior remodeling, interior rehabilitation or interior repair work. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the following types of projects shall be considered a Redevelopment Plan Project: (i) development activity involving an Historic Resource, including any interior remodeling, interior rehabilitation, or interior repair work that affects the exterior; and/or (ii) development activity involving a Residential Hotel/Single Room Occupancy Hotel (SRO), vacant Dwelling Unit, or a Dwelling Unit housing Lower Income Households in the City Center Project Area and the Central Industrial Project Area, including any interior remodeling, interior rehabilitation or interior repair work that may result in the loss of a dwelling unit.
“Redevelopment Plan Project Adjustment” shall mean the same as a “minor variation” or “variation” as these terms are used in each Redevelopment Plan and is a decision by the Director that a Redevelopment Plan Project substantially complies with the relevant Redevelopment Regulations except for a minor deviation therefrom, either as submitted or with conditions imposed to achieve substantial compliance with the applicable Redevelopment Regulations.
“Redevelopment Plan Project Administrative Review” shall mean the issuance of a ministerial approval by the Director for a Redevelopment Plan Project that complies with the applicable Redevelopment Regulations, and does not require the imposition of conditions or the making of findings.
“Redevelopment Plan Project Compliance” shall mean a decision by the Director that a Redevelopment Plan Project complies with the applicable Redevelopment Regulations, either as submitted or with conditions imposed to achieve compliance with the Redevelopment Regulations.
“Redevelopment Project Area” or “Redevelopment Plan Area” or “Community Redevelopment Plan Area” shall here and after be referred to as “Redevelopment Project Area” and shall mean the area included within the specific geographic boundaries identified as a project area in a Redevelopment Plan.
“Redevelopment Regulations” shall mean all the land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plans and design for development guidelines adopted pursuant to such Redevelopment Plans that govern land use or development that were transferred to the City pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(i).
“Residential Hotel/SRO” shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Development Guidelines and Controls for Residential Hotels in the City Center and Central Industrial Redevelopment Project Areas, adopted by the former CRA on June 15, 2006, and/or the Residential Hotel Ordinance (Ordinance No. 179,868) of the City of Los Angeles. All projects involving a Residential Hotel/SRO shall be considered a Redevelopment Plan Project and subject to all provisions required unless otherwise stated.
“Unexpired” shall mean that the applicable Redevelopment Regulations are still in effect on the date of approval of a Redevelopment Plan Project or Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
D. Administration of Redevelopment Plan Projects. Applications for approval of Redevelopment Plan Projects, including applications for Redevelopment Plan Project Administrative Review, Project Compliance, and Modification of Entitlement for a Redevelopment Plan Project shall be filed and processed as follows:
1. Applications.
(a) General Requirements.
(1) Applications filed under this Article must include all the information required by the Department of City Planning. All applications shall be made on forms prepared by the Department of City Planning.
(2) Applications shall include all fees required by Article 9 of Chapter 1 of the LAMC.
(b) Application Completeness.
(1) An application is not complete until all required items are submitted and all required application fees are paid.
(2) The City will not process incomplete applications. Applications will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5, as may be amended from time to time).
(c) Multiple Entitlement Requests.
(1) In order to facilitate the development process, applications for multiple entitlements for the same project shall be submitted and processed concurrently as provided in Sec. 13A.2.10 of Chapter 1A of the LAMC.
(d) Withdrawal of Application.
(1) At any time before the initial decision maker or appellate body on appeal makes a final decision on an application, the applicant may withdraw the application.
(2) The withdrawal of the application must be in writing and does not require the decision maker to concur. The withdrawal of the application shall be permanent and any associated authorizations shall be void.
2. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the Director or the Director’s designee from promulgating administrative guidelines to interpret and implement the Redevelopment Regulations.
3. Notice and Hearing. Notice shall be given and public hearings shall be held as required by the LAMC.
4. Review Procedures for Redevelopment Plan Project Administrative Review.
(a) Eligibility. Any project involving a Residential Hotel/SRO, vacant Dwelling Unit, or a Dwelling Unit housing Lower Income Households in the City Center Project Area and the Central Industrial Project Area, or any project involving construction that consists of interior remodeling, interior rehabilitation or interior repair work that results in the loss of Dwelling Units shall not be eligible for an administrative review. Projects that do not qualify for a Redevelopment Plan Project Administrative Review may apply for a Redevelopment Plan Project Compliance or a Redevelopment Plan Project Adjustment.
(b) Initiation. A Project Administrative Review is initiated by filing an application with the Department of City Planning or by following the LAMC’s procedures to obtain a building permit.
(c) Notice of Public Hearing. There is no public hearing.
(d) Clearance. Clearance shall be issued pursuant to the applicable ordinance or building permit requirement.
(e) Criteria for Compliance Review. The Department shall review the application for compliance with the relevant standards of this Code and the appropriate Redevelopment Plan, including the zone standards, established development standards, and any supplemental use regulations.
(f) Scope of Action. Once a project’s Administrative Review is complete, any subsequent development activity (including but not limited to the erection, enlargement or maintenance of buildings, development or construction work, and issuance of a grading, building or change of use permit) shall comply with the plans approved by the Department of City Planning in the Administrative Review for the project
(g) Appeals. There is no appeal.
(h) Modification of Action. Any change to the scope of the application requires review by the Department of City Planning as provided in this subdivision.
5. Review Procedures for Redevelopment Plan Project Compliance.
(a) Initiation. A property owner files an application for Project Compliance Review with the Department of City Planning.
(b) Notice of Public Hearing. The Director shall provide notice as required by the LAMC.
(c) Decision.
(1) Decision Maker. The Director is the initial decision maker and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project Compliance.
(2) Decision.
(i) The Director shall render the initial decision within 75 days of the date the application is deemed complete or, when an EIR or other CEQA document is required, the date the EIR or other CEQA document is certified or adopted.
(ii) If the Director fails to make a timely decision, the applicant may file a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Area Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13B.4.2.D.3.b. of Chapter 1A of the LAMC.
(3) Transmittal. The Director shall transmit a copy of the decision by email, electronic transmission, or mail to the applicant, the Department of Building and Safety, the Councilmember(s) having jurisdiction over the Redevelopment Project Area in which the property is located, the Department of Transportation (when appropriate), owners of all properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the subject property; and interested parties who have filed written requests for notice with the City Planning Department.
(d) Standards for Review and Required Findings. The Director shall grant a Project Compliance upon written findings that the project:
(1) Substantially complies with the relevant Redevelopment Regulations, findings, standards and provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and
(2) Is subject to all conditions required by the relevant Redevelopment Regulations; and
(3) Complies with CEQA; and
(4) Any other findings that are required in the relevant Redevelopment Plan.
(f) Limitations. The granting of a Project Compliance shall not imply compliance with any other applicable provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Any corrections and/or modifications to project plans made subsequent to a Project Compliance that are deemed necessary by the Department of Building and Safety for Building Code compliance, and which involve a change in floor area, parking, building height, yards or setbacks, building separation or lot coverage, shall require a referral of the revised plans back to the Department of City Planning (and the Department of Transportation in cases where there are corrections and/or modifications that may affect the calculation of vehicle trips generated, project floor area or parking) for additional review and sign-off prior to the issuance of any permit in connection with those plans.
(g) Appeals.
(1) Decision Maker. The Area Planning Commission is the appellate decision maker.
(2) Filing. An applicant or any other person aggrieved by the Director’s decision may file an appeal.
(3) Appellate Decision.
(i) Before acting on any appeal, the Area Planning Commission shall set the matter for hearing. The following notice is required for the public hearing on an appeal.
Type of Notice | When | Where / To Whom / Additional Requirements |
Mail | 21 days | • The applicant; • Owners and occupants of all properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the subject property; • The Councilmember(s) having jurisdiction over the Redevelopment Plan area in which the property is located; • The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment; and • Interested parties who have requested notice in writing. |
(ii) The Area Planning Commission shall act within 75 days after the expiration of the appeal period.
(iii) The decision to approve or deny an appeal must contain the same findings required by the original decision maker, supported by substantial evidence.
(4) Filing of Appeals.
(i) Appeals shall be in writing and filed on forms maintained by the Department.
(ii) An appeal shall specifically state the points at issue and the reasons why the decision should not be upheld.
(iii) An appeal not properly or timely filed shall not be accepted.
(5) Time Limits for Appeal. Appeals must be filed within 15 days after the date on the letter of determination to the applicant.
(6) Appeal Procedures.
(i) An appeal stays proceedings in the matter until the appellate body makes a decision.
(ii) After an appeal is filed, the initial decision maker transmits the appeal and the file to the appellate body, together with any report, if one was prepared by staff, responding to the points raised made in the appeal.
(iii) When the appellate body receives the appeal, the initial decision maker loses jurisdiction.
(iv) Upon the date set for the hearing, the appellate body shall either hear the appeal, or continue the matter by mutual agreement with the project applicant to another date if there is cause to do so. No notice of continuance need be given if the continuance is announced at a public meeting at the time for which the hearing was originally set.
(v) The appellate body shall conduct a public hearing. After the public hearing, the appellate body shall render a decision.
(vi) The appellate body may extend the time period for deciding an appeal to allow the consideration of changes to the project requested by the applicant. If the appellate body finds that the changes are substantial, including any additional CEQA analysis, the hearing may be continued by mutual agreement with the project applicant. The appellate body shall provide notice of the continued hearing before such hearing is held. The time period required for additional notice is at least the time required for posted notice on the original application.
(vii) The appellate body shall hear the matter de novo. It may take additional evidence, and shall base its decision on the record before it. In making its decision, the appellate body shall make the same findings as required by the initial decision maker, supported by substantial evidence.
(7) Modification of Entitlement. A Project Compliance may be modified pursuant to Subdivision 6. below.
6. Modification of Entitlement for a Redevelopment Plan Project.
(a) Applicability.
(1) Original Action. This subdivision applies to the modification of a previously approved entitlement (referred to in this subdivision as the “original action”) that substantially conforms to the original approval.
(2) Modification.
(i) For purposes of this subdivision, a “modification” means any changes in the proposed physical development, planned operation, or conditions of approval.
(ii) In no event can any modification or series of modifications allow a use, single deviation, or series of deviations (including but not limited to “minor variations” and “variations” as those terms are used in the Redevelopment Plans) to exceed the maximum deviation allowed by the relevant Redevelopment Plan or LAMC.
(3) Maximum Deviation.
(i) Use, single deviation, or series of deviations from the LAMC or Redevelopment Plan which was not approved as part of the original action; or
(ii) Any modification that would result in an increase or reduction of the physical development, planned operation, or conditions of approval on the original action by more than 20%.
(4) New Application. Any deviation that does not substantially conform to the original action or exceeds the maximum deviation prescribed in Subparagraph (3) (Maximum Deviation) above requires a new project application.
(b) Initiation.
(1) A Modification of Entitlement is initiated by filing an application with the Department of City Planning.
(2) The application must include development plans showing the requested modifications.
(3) A Modification of Entitlement shall be filed and approved before the original action expires.
(c) Notice of Public Hearing. Notice of the public hearing on an initial decision and appeal is provided in the same manner as the original action or appeal.
(d) Decision.
(1) Decision Maker.
(i) The decision maker on a Modification of Entitlement is the initial decision maker on the original action. In the event that the initial decision maker was the CRA, the Director of Planning shall be the decision maker.
(ii) If the original action was subject to multiple approvals, the initial decision maker is the initial decision maker assigned pursuant to Sec. 13A.2.10 of Chapter 1A of the LAMC (Multiple Approvals).
(iii) If the original action was subject to an appeal, the decision maker on the Modification of Entitlement is the appellate body on the original action.
(2) Public Hearing. The initial decision maker may conduct a public hearing after providing the notice required Section 11.5.14 D.6.(c) (Notice of Public Hearing) above. A hearing need not be held if the initial decision maker makes a written finding that the requested Modification of Entitlement:
(i) will not have a significant effect on adjoining properties or on the immediate neighborhood; or
(ii) is not likely to evoke public controversy.
(3) Decision. The initial decision maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request within 75 days after the application is deemed complete.
(4) Conditions. The initial decision maker may impose conditions on the modification as allowed by the regulations governing the original action.
(5) Transmittal. The initial decision maker shall transmit a copy of the decision by mail to the applicant, all owners and occupants of properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the subject property, and persons who have filed a written request for notice with the Department of City Planning.
(e) Standard of Review and Required Findings.
(1) A Modification of Entitlement shall not be granted unless the decision maker finds that the modification complies with all of the findings that apply to the original action.
(2) If the application for Modification of Entitlement is for only a portion of a development project, the decision maker’s review and decision shall be limited to only that portion of the project. However, the decision maker may consider the entire project to the extent that the approved project and the portion for which the Modification of Entitlement is requested are indistinct.
(g) Appeals. The initial decision on a Modification of Entitlement is appealable in the same manner as the original action.
7. Review Procedures for Redevelopment Plan Project Adjustment.
(a) Initiation. A property owner files an application for Project Adjustment with the Department of City Planning.
(b) Notice of Public Hearing. The Director shall provide any notice required by the LAMC.
(c) Decision.
(1) Decision Maker. The Director is the initial decision maker, and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project Adjustment.
(2) Time Limit.
(i) The Director shall render the initial decision within 75 days of the date the application is deemed complete.
(ii) If the Director fails to make a timely decision, the applicant may file a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Area Planning Commission pursuant to Sec. 13B.4.2.D.3.b. of Chapter 1A of the LAMC.
(3) Transmittal. The Director shall transmit a copy of the decision by email, electronic transmission, or mail to the applicant, the Department of Building and Safety, the Councilmember(s) having jurisdiction over the Redevelopment Plan Area in which the property is located, the Department of Transportation (when appropriate), owners of all properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the subject property; and interested parties who have filed written requests to receive notice with the City Planning Department.
(d) Standards for Review and Required Findings. The Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a Project Adjustment if the Director finds in writing that:
(1) Substantially complies with the applicable Redevelopment Regulations; and
(2) Complies with CEQA; and
(3) All findings for variations and minor variations, as required by the applicable Redevelopment Plan, are met.
(f) Appeals.
(1) Decision Maker. The Area Planning Commission is the appellate decision maker.
(2) Filing. An applicant or any other person aggrieved by the Director’s decision may file an appeal.
(3) Appellate Decision.
(i) Before acting on an appeal, the Area Planning Commission shall set the matter for hearing. The following notice is required for the public hearing on an appeal.
Type of Notice | When | Where / To Whom / Additional Requirements |
Mail | 21 days | • The applicant; • Owners and occupants of all properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the subject property; • The Councilmember(s) having jurisdiction over the Redevelopment Project area in which the property is located; • The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment; and • Interested parties who have requested notice in writing. |
(ii) The Area Planning Commission shall act within 75 days after the expiration of the appeal period.
(iii) The decision to approve or deny an appeal must contain the same findings required by the original decision maker, supported by substantial evidence.
(4) Filing of Appeals.
(i) Appeals shall be in writing and filed on forms maintained by the Department.
(ii) An appeal shall specifically state the points at issue and the reasons why the decision should not be upheld.
(iii) An appeal not properly or timely filed shall not be accepted.
(5) Time Limits for Appeal. Appeals must be filed within 15 days after the date on the letter of determination to the applicant.
(6) Appeal Procedures.
(i) An appeal stays proceedings in the matter until the appellate body makes a decision.
(ii) After an appeal is filed, the initial decision maker transmits the appeal and the file to the appellate body, together with any report, if one was prepared by staff, responding to the points raised made in the appeal.
(iii) When the appellate body receives the appeal, the initial decision maker loses jurisdiction.
(iv) Upon the date set for the hearing, the appellate body shall either hear the appeal, or continue the matter by mutual agreement with the project applicant to another date if there is cause to do so. No notice of continuance need be given if the continuance is announced at a public meeting at the time for which the hearing was originally set.
(v) The appellate body shall conduct a public hearing. After the public hearing, the appellate body shall render a decision.
(vi) The appellate body may extend the time period for deciding an appeal to allow the consideration of changes to the project requested by the applicant. If the appellate body finds that the changes are substantial, including any additional CEQA analysis, the hearing may be continued by mutual agreement with the project applicant. The appellate body shall provide notice of the continued hearing before such hearing is held. The time period required for additional notice is at least the time required for posted notice on the original application.
(vii) The appellate body shall hear the matter de novo. It may take additional evidence, and shall base its decision on the record before it. In making its decision, the appellate body shall make the same findings as required by the initial decision maker, supported by substantial evidence.
(g) The decision of the appellate body is final.
(h) Modification of Entitlement. No modification is available.
8. Initiation of Redevelopment Plan Amendment(s). The City Council, the City Planning Commission or the Director of Planning may initiate consideration of an amendment to any Redevelopment Plan, subject to the requirements and limitations of the Charter and state law. The fee for a Redevelopment Plan Amendment shall be as set forth in Section 19.01 G. of this Code.
9. Multiple Approvals. When an application is filed pursuant to this Section for a Redevelopment Plan Project requiring multiple approvals, the process set forth in Sec. 13A.2.10 of Chapter 1A of the LAMC shall apply.
(Title Amended by Ord. No. 138,800, Eff. 6/13/69, Oper. 6/23/69.)
Section
12.00 Title.
12.01 Continuation of Existing Regulations.
12.02 Purpose.
12.03 Definitions.
12.04 Zones – Districts – Symbols.
12.04.01 Violations of Specific Plans.
12.04.05 “OS” Open Space Zone.
12.04.09 “PF” Public Facilities Zone.
12.05 “A1” Agriculture Zone.
12.06 “A2” Agricultural Zone.
12.07 “RA” Suburban Zone.
12.07.01 “RE” Residential Estate Zone.
12.07.1 “RS” Suburban Zone.
12.08 “R1” One-family Zone.
12.08.1 RU Residential Urban Zone.
12.08.3 RZ Residential Zero Side Yard Zone.
12.08.5 “RW1” Residential Waterways Zone.
12.09 “R2” Two-Family Zone.
12.09.1 “RD” Restricted Density Multiple Dwelling Zone.
12.09.3 “RMP” Mobilehome Park Zone.
12.09.5 “RW2” Residential Waterways Zone.
12.10 “R3” Multiple Dwelling Zone.
12.10.5 RAS3 Residential/Accessory Services Zone Purpose Statement.
12.11 “R4” Multiple Dwelling Zone.
12.11.5 RAS4 Residential/Accessory Services Zone Purpose Statement.
12.12 “R5” Multiple Dwelling Zone.
12.12.1 “P” Automobile Parking Zone.
12.12.1.5 “PB” Parking Building Zone.
12.12.2 “CR” Limited Commercial Zone.
12.13 “C1” Limited Commercial Zone.
12.13.5 “C1.5” Limited Commercial Zone
12.14 “C2” Commercial Zone.
12.16 “C4” Commercial Zone.
12.16.1 “CW” Central City West Specific Plan Zone.
12.16.2 ADP Alameda District Specific Plan Zone.
12.16.3 LASED Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District Specific Plan Zone.
12.16.4 CEC Convention and Event Center Specific Plan Zone.
12.16.5 USC-1A University of Southern California University Park Campus Specific Plan Subarea 1A Zone.
12.16.6 USC-1B University of Southern California University Park Campus Specific Plan Subarea 1B Zone.
12.16.7 USC-2 University of Southern California University Park Campus Specific Plan Subarea 2 Zone.
12.16.8 USC-3 University of Southern California University Park Campus Specific Plan Subarea 3 Zone.
12.16.9 PVSP Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan Zone.
12.16.10 DNSP District NoHo Specific Plan Zone.
12.17 “C5” Commercial Zone.
12.17.1 “CM” Commercial Manufacturing Zone.
12.17.2 “CM(GM)” Commercial Manufacturing (Glencoe/Maxella) Specific Plan Zone.
12.17.5 “MR1” Restricted Industrial Zone.
12.17.5.5 “CCS” Century City South Specific Plan Studio Zone.
12.17.6 “M1” Limited Industrial Zone.
12.18 “MR2” Restricted Light Industrial Zone.
12.18.1 “WC” Warner Center Specific Plan Zone.
12.19 “M2” Light Industrial Zone.
12.19.1 LAX Los Angeles International Airport Zone.
12.20 “M3” Heavy Industrial Zone.
12.20.1 SL Ocean – Submerged Land Zone.
12.20.2 Coastal Development Permits (Prior to Certification of the Local Coastal Program.)
12.20.2.1 Coastal Development Permit Procedures After Certification of the Local Coastal Program.
12.20.3 “HP” Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.
12.21 General Provisions.
12.21.1 Height of Building or Structures.
12.21.2 Height of Buildings or Structures in Century City.
12.21.3 Height of Buildings or Structures in Community Redevelopment Plan Areas.
12.21.4 Height of Buildings or Structures in Enterprise Zones.
12.21.5 Height of Buildings or Structures in Centers Study Areas.
12.21.6 Height of Buildings or Structures in All R1V, R1F, and R1R One-Family Zone Variations.
12.22 Exceptions.
12.22.1 City of Los Angeles Safer Filming Ordinance.
12.23 Nonconforming Building and Uses.
12.24 Conditional Use Permits and Other Similar Quasi-Judicial Approvals.
12.24.1 Land Use Determination by City Planning Commission.
12.25 Time Limitations.
12.26 Department of Building and Safety.
12.27 Variances.
12.27.1 Administrative Nuisance Abatement Proceedings.
12.28 Adjustments and Slight Modifications.
12.29 Violation of Conditions – Penalty.
12.30 Boundaries of Zones.
12.31 Interpretation – Purpose – Conflict.
12.32 Land Use Legislative Actions.
12.33 Park Fees and Land Dedication.
12.34 Application of Provisions.
12.35 Zoning of Annexed or Unzoned Areas.
12.37 Highway and Collector Street Dedication and Improvement.
12.38 Dedication of Streets by Long Term Leases.
12.40 Landscape – General Requirements.
12.41 Landscape – Water Management.
12.42 Landscape.
12.43 Source Reduction of Waste.
12.50 Airport Approach Zoning Regulations.
12.70 Adult Entertainment Zoning.
12.80 Homeless Shelters – Emergencies – City Owned and Leased Property.
12.81 Homeless Shelters – Emergencies – Charitable Organizations.
12.82 Homeless Shelters – Emergencies – El Niño 2016.
This article shall be known as the “Comprehensive Zoning Plan of the City of Los Angeles.”
It is well settled that a municipality may divide land into districts and prescribe regulations governing the uses permitted therein, and that zoning ordinances when reasonable in object and not arbitrary in operation constitute a justifiable exercise of police power, and as intendment is in favor of the validity of such ordinances the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning action.
Lockard v. The City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal. 2d 453.
Clemens v. The City of Los Angeles, 36 Cal.2d 95.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal. App. 2d 348.
Burke v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal. App.2d 189.
Ex Parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal 222.
Miller v. Board of Public Works, 95 Cal. 485.
Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497.
People v. Norton, 108 Cal. App. Supp. 767.
Otis v. City of Los Angeles. 52 Cal. App. 2d 605.
Hadacheck v. Alexander. 169 Cal. 616.
Brown v. City of Los Angeles. 183 Cal. 783, 789.
Ex Parte Hadacheck.165 Cal. 416.
Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Fed. 2d 528.
Kort v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 2d 804.
Acker v. Baldwin, 18 Cal 2d 341.
In re Ruppe, 80 Cal. App. 629.
Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 71 L. Ed. 303.
Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal 2d 332.
The right to use private property may be restricted by an ordinance which follows a reasonable plan even though the use is neither a nuisance per se, nor a menace to health, safety or morals in the district from which it is excluded. A retroactive ordinance which causes substantial injury to a business which is not a nuisance would be unreasonable and unjustifiable.
People v. Nixon, CR A 2201.
Comprehensive Zoning is a legitimate exercise of the police power and city ordinances prohibiting the production of oil in designated zones are valid if reasonable and not arbitrary.
Beverly Oil Company v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. 2nd 552.
Any zoning regulation is a valid exercise of the police power which is necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The police power as evidence in zoning ordinances has a much wider scope than the mere oppression of offensive users of property. Such regulations do not constitute a taking of property for which compensations must be made.
Miller v. Board of Public Works. 195 Cal. 482.
It is not a ground of invalidity of a zoning ordinance that a business is lawful, innocent, inoffensive and dignified, for if restrictions on business could be invalidated on that ground there could be no such thing as comprehensive city planning.
Kort v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 2nd, 804, 809.
A master plan or some over-all plan contemplated by a city in the development and building up of a subdivision need not be approved and adopted before authority vests in relation to conditions imposed by the city on a subdivider, where a Charter contemplates that portion of the plan may be adopted.
Ayers v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d 31.
The purpose of this article is to consolidate and coordinate all existing zoning regulations and provisions into one comprehensive zoning plan in order to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land, for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purposes; to regulate and limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered to regulate and determine the size of yards and other open spaces and to regulate and limit the density of population; and for said purposes to divide the City into zones of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement. Further, such regulations are deemed necessary in order to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to provide adequate open spaces for light and air, and to prevent and fight fires; to prevent undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion on streets; to facilitate adequate provisions for community utilities and facilities such as transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and to promote health, safety, and the general welfare all in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The zoning regulations are not contracts by the City and may therefore be modified by the latter. Property is always held subject to the valid exercise of the police power. The theory of vested rights relates only to such rights as an owner of property may possess not to have their property rezoned after the owner of the property has started construction thereon or was making a use thereof permitted by law, when such obstruction or use does not constitute a nuisance and the adoption of the zoning ordinance does not give a property owner any vested rights.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal. App. 2d 348 at 365.
No person has a vested right in the exercise of the police power. An exercise of the same may not be limited by a prior contract or restricted covenants.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Ca. App. 2d 348, 367.
Acker v. Baldwin, 18 Cal. 2d 341.
When a building is partly in one zone and partly in another, a person who conducts a prohibited business in the portion of such building where such business is prohibited, held, guilty of violation of the zoning ordinance, even though conduct of such business in other part of building would have been lawful.
People v. Nixon CR A 2201.
The use of a lot restricted to non-business uses as place where automobiles stood on concrete slab while being serviced from pump located on lot zoned for business, held to be a use of restricted lot for business purposes in violation of zoning ordinance.
People v. Myers, CR A550.
An ordinance which forbids the erection and maintenance of a dwelling house except where such dwelling has adequate and permanent access to a permanent or public street is valid.
Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446.
It is not an unlawful exercise of police power to amend a zoning ordinance and extend the limits of an area in which conduct of a certain business is prohibited when no construction or building has been started.
Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles. 139 Cal. 179.
Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 F.2d 528.
A zoning ordinance is not void or discriminatory because there is a territory outside the district in which a business subject to the police power is permitted, exactly similar to that inside the district where it is prohibited.
Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783.
Where three separately numbered lots are enclosed with a fence and occupied and used as a single parcel, house being on one lot and horses were kept on other lot, held, the entire premises were used for a single family residence with customary outbuildings within meaning of county ordinance.
People v. Smith, CK A 1696.
Where zone boundary line runs through a building, held, fact that defendant was uncertain as to where such line ran is not a defense to charge of conducting business in a forbidden zone.
People v. Nixon, CR A 2201.
Zoning ordinances, when reasonable in object and not arbitrary in operation, constitute a justifiable exercise of the police power, and such power extends to the regulation of uses of property which do not actually amount to nuisances.
Jones v. City Of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. 304
Where a vendor of property conceals the fact that a violation of zoning regulations exists thereon, the purchaser is not bound by constructive notice of the applicable zoning ordinance, and said vendor’s failure to disclose such violation constitutes actual fraud.
Barder v. McClung, 93 Cal. App. 2d 692.
Zoning Ordinances which have been held invalid fall roughly into four categories: 1. Where the zoning ordinance attempts to exclude and prohibit existing and established uses or businesses that are not nuisances. 2. Where restrictions create a monopoly. 3. Where the use of adjacent property renders the land entirely unsuited to or unusable for the only purpose permitted by the ordinance. 4. Where a small parcel is restricted and given less rights than surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business district is limited to use for residential purposes, thereby creating an “island” in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses.
Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal. 2d 332,340.
The terms “buildable area” and “building site”, Article 1, Section 3(11) of the City Charter of Los Angeles are defined to include a “Designated Building Site” as that term is defined in and provided for by Section 2 of uncodified Ordinance 159,802, Eff. 6/9/85.
Loading...