Open Letter to Councilman Bill Rosendahl On City Mural Ordinance

The new ordinance will allow for the creation and preservation of original art murals and public art installations on private property including single-family homes.

The Los Angeles City Council will meet to vote on this ordinance on June 19.

The following letter was submitted by Steve Wallace to CD 11 Councilman Bill Rosendahl:

Bill

There is no way you can vote for this. This is a crazy ordinance. This will encourage graffiti.This will have every Tom, Dick, Harry (and gang bangers) painting their walls with:

• Rest in Peace Alex, 1990-2013
• Images of Jesus Christ on a cross
• All the colors of the rainbow
• In Large Letters "Killed by the LAPD"

and all that stuff

This will help glorify gang bangers in the way it glorifies murderers on the streets of West Belfast - see images - Is this what you really want?

And if you live across the street, you open your blinds to see this every day, when all you want to do is look at the blue sky above.

THIS CITY IS LOSING ITS SOUL - VERY FAST and it will drive tax payers out of Los Angeles to Culver City, Santa Monica and Manhattan Beach.

This is not something that you can vote for.

Someone wants to paint a mural, paint it on the inside wall of their house.

Sincerely,

Steve Wallace

Editor’s note: Letters may be edited for brevity and clarity.

Below is an action item on the ordinance:

ACTION ALERT:  CF 11-0923 / MURAL ORDINANCE-

City Council Meeting -  June 19th

ACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO OPPOSE THE ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.  Oppose this ordinance that allows murals to be placed on R1 (and all low density residential properties).

            --request the return of the exemption for R1 and/or

            --request the return of the exemption for R1 and all low density residential properties                             (per Planning Dept. staff report/recommendations)

             --request it return to PLUM for further work.  (Would Council adopt the provisions

                related to  commercial properties and return it to PLUM for further review on

                residential housing?)

The City’s proposed MURAL ORDINANCE is expected to go to the full City Council for its consideration on June 19th.  A very problematic change to the ordinance was made at PLUM which has to do with the minimum number of residential units to be allowed to display a mural. 

As first proposed by the Planning Dept., murals were to have been EXCLUDED from residential properties of fewer than five units.  Then at the City Planning Commission, that was reduced to a ban on residential properties of two or fewer units.  Murals were to be allowed anywhere in the city EXCEPT for duplex and R1 properties.

At PLUM following discussion, instructions given to the City Attorney were to draft an ordinance with NO carve-out or exception for R1. The ordinance passed quietly out of PLUM  1/15/13 allowing for murals on all residential properties for drafting at the City Attorney’s office. There has been no apparent activity since then.  However, we now learn that the Ordinance is to be heard on JUNE 19 before the full Council.

IF ADOPTED AS PROPOSED THIS ORDINANCE WILL HAVE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.  While the ordinance includes a provision that requires those planning to install an art mural on their property to do community outreach, there is no requirement to respond to, act upon or implement comments received from neighbors or the community. 

We have also learned that it is possible that the Council will be asked to consider the SIGN ORDINANCE at the meeting on June 19th  (before Council membership changes).  We do not have confirmation of this at this time so stay tuned and watch for email alerts.  Those following the sign ordinance know that the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight and others following the ordinance closely recommend adoption of the ordinance as soon as possible to provide communities with protections not currently available to them. 

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFO WITH OTHERS

Submit written testimony, Call Council offices, Attend the 6/19 Council meeting

BACKGROUND:  CF 11-0923,  (08-0515, 08-1233, 08-0530)

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0923_rpt_plan_1-4-13.pdf.  The last line of last paragraph on page 3:

An  outstanding  issue from the November 20, 2012 PLUM  hearing  is  the  minimum  number  of units for  a residential  building  to be  allowed  to  display  a  mural.  The original  proposed  ordinance  recommended  that no residential buildings with  fewer than five units be allowed and that was reduced to two units by  the GPG. There was significant discussion at PLUM regarding such a ban of murals on single-family homes.

See the second point under #1 in this document: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0923_misc_plum_2-21-13.pdf  /

PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REQUESTS

At a regular meeting held on January 15 , 2013 (continued from November 20, 2012), the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee considered Categorical Exemption

and related California Environmental Quality Act findings, reports from the Los Angeles City Planning Commission relative to a proposed ordinance amending Los Angeles Municipal Code

(LAMC) Sections 14.4.2, 14.4.3, 14.4.4, and 14.4.20 and amending Los Angeles Administrative Code (LAAC) Sections 5.111.2 and 22.116 and adding Section 22.119 to the LAAC to allow for the creation of new original art murals and the preservation of existing original art murals on private property.

The Committee took the following actions:

1. Requested the Office of the City Attorney to prepare and present an ordinance to do the following:  · Incorporate the recommended changes noted on page two of the Department of City Planning (DCP) report dated January 4, 2013. · Delete the residential restriction where murals can first be located so that no restriction exists in a Citywide baseline ordinance.

·Add an instruction for the DCP to add a reference to existing land use tools to allow local communities to request restrictions on residential properties in coordination with the local Council Offices. {See the document for the additional points included by PLUM. This is not a complete list.}

Planning Dept. staff wisely recommended that the mural ordinance should apply to commercial buildings and residential buildings of FIVE OR MORE units.    At the staff hearing there were numerous advocates who wanted the restrictions on low density residential properties REMOVED.  Staff still recommends that the ordinance be implemented as recommended. 

It makes sense to implement the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Dept. (not by PLUM) and evaluate how it is working.  The presence of murals in all zones will undoubtedly have a strong impact on neighborhood character.  Such possible/probable impacts deserve significantly more discussion and debate throughout the City.  Write to support the staff report with the recommended restrictions on placement of murals in low density residential neighborhoods (properties of less than five units, including a restriction on single family homes).

The ordinance is identified as: CF 11-0923 and the past as: 08-0515, 08-1233, 08-0530/CPC 2008-3142 CA

The supplemental staff report can be found by linking from the report title below or  by going to:
http://plancheckncla.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/supplemental-mural-staff-report-for-CPC-meeting-Sept-13.pdf

Planning dept. staff commented to the point that many neighborhoods don't want any murals at all on residences and that their proposal sought to create a balance while leaving local communities to adopt their own more restrictive or more generous specific plans.  (They can go up or down.)  Planning also noted that it is far more difficult to take away something that has been granted than it is to adopt new plans that provide new benefits/options.

Recent Neighborhood Council motions/actions:

The Board of the Studio City Neighborhood Council requests that the  ordinance related to murals, Council File # 11-0923, contain a provision, which would enable individual Neighborhood Councils to opt out of allowing murals on single - family properties through the use of an overlay.

WHEREAS the City of Los Angeles Planning & Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee approved a Mural Ordinance for the entire city and the City Council is expected to consider it very soon; and WHEREAS the ordinance would facilitate the placement of new murals as well as protect and preserve existing murals; and WHEREAS the current version of the proposed ordinance would facilitate approval of murals on single-family homes; and WHEREAS digitally printed images are considered “ Original Art Installations ”  under the current version of the ordinance; and WHEREAS the proposed ordinance does not provide a means for individual communities and Neighborhood Councils to tailor the ordinance to reflect the needs and characteristics of their areas; LET IT BE RESOLVED that the West Hills Neighborhood Council supports Councilmember Mitchell Englander ’ s request to separate from the proposed ordinance those elements that relate to digital graphics and murals on single family homes; and LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that these two elements of the Mural Ordinance should be referred back to the PLUM Committee, allowing Neighborhood Councils to participate in crafting rules that respect the different needs of communities throughout the city.

______________________________________________________________________________

Although the Mid - City Neighborhood Council supports the   concept  behind the Murals Ordinance ("Ordinance") due to the   benefits this ordinance will have on the neighborhood council  community, we oppose the Ordinance as it is currently written.

______________________________________________________________________________

Neighborhood Council Valley Village opposes the Mural Ordinance as it now exists. Our community is a fervent supporter of Arts in Los Angeles. We have first - hand experience with inappropriately placed murals, specifically on private homes.

We favor council  action that allows for beautification through original art murals, but the current ordinance is too broad.

We believe that the matter should be reconsidered with input from NCs and HAs