City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 ( Draft Dated May 29, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 (Draft Dated May 29, 2008)

Key Community Issues By Barbara Monahan Burke and Rita Villa

Co-Chairs SCNC Government Affairs Committee

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key Community Issues Preservation of Neighborhood Character Changes to the Goals of the Housing Element Objection to the RHNA Allocation Affordable Housing Policies Implementing Ordinance for SB 1818 Tenant Co-Ops Land Use Implementation Tools Preservation of Zoning Code Protections Preservation of the Land Use Committee Process Congestion and Parking Impacts Revisions to the Housing Element Inventory Expansion of Parking Space Requirements Preservation of Open Space and Infrastructure Enhancements The Need for A New EIR Exhibit 1 – Housing Needed to Accommodate Growth Presentation Endnotes Page 3 4 6 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 28 29 30

3

Key Community Issues

• Preservation of Neighborhood Character
• Affordable Housing
• Congestion and Parking
• Open Space and Infrastructure

4

A fundamental objective of the Housing Element should be preservation of the scale and character of the City’s neighborhoods.

5

The City of Los Angeles Is Not One Great Urban Mass.

• It is comprised of individual neighborhoods which

may be either urban, suburban or rural in character.

• The character of Studio City is suburban.
• Dramatic increases in density achieved through an

increase in the number, height and mass of buildings will adversely impact the scale, character, and quality of life in Studio City.

• We object to the revision to policy 2.4.3 which removes “the preservation
• f the maintenance of the prevailing scale and character of stable

residential neighborhoods” from Objective 2.4. We do not agree that only “unique” neighborhoods are worthy of preservation or that preservation must be “balanced with facilitating new development.” It may in fact mean that additional development should not be permitted unless it is in scale with the neighborhood.

• We object to the deletion of “preservation of our neighborhoods” and

“maintenance of the quality of life in residential areas” from Goal 2 in the Housing Element. We do not agree with the revised Goal which is simply to create a safe sustainable neighborhood.

• We object to the deletion from Objective 2.1 of the words “provide for

adequate population.” We consider these words to be protective of our neighborhoods from overpopulation that would strain the infrastructure to the breaking point.

• We question the propriety of the policies in the Housing Element that call

for eliminating zoning code provisions such as in policy 4.1.6. The zoning code provides a transparent process for evaluation of projects and their impact on the neighborhood based on their merits in each location.

6

We Do Not Agree to Several of the Changes to the Goals of the Housing Element.

7

The City Should Object to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocated to it by the Southern California Association of Governments as it is Double the Number of Units Needed to Support the Population Growth Projected During the Housing Element Period.

8

The Actual Number of Houses Needed to Accommodate the Expected Population Growth is Half the RHNA Allocation.(4)

• The City’s RHNA allocation is 112,876 units.
• This represents 1/6th of the total SCAG RHNA. (1)
• The City’s population is expected to increase by 113,789

during the 2006-2014 Housing Element Update planning

• period. (2)
• Not every person will require an individual unit. Family

households consisting of 2 or more related persons make up 61% of the households in L.A. while single person households represent only 30.5%. (3)

• Approximately 40% of the new units the City is responsible for

producing per the RHNA allocation are designated for very low and low-income families. (5)

• Policy 1.2.2 of the Housing Element is to preserve and upgrade

the existing housing stock or replace, on a 1-for-1 basis, demolished units serving extremely low to moderate income households (6).

• The City’s implementing ordinance for SB 1818 has actually

displaced households in rent stabilized units.

9

Policies in the Housing Element Designed to Encourage Affordable Housing Are Not Adequate.

• We do not agree with the change to the Rent Stabilization

Ordinance objective on page 6-28. This change will reduce renters’ protections and could actually decrease affordable housing.

• The City currently has 21,577 housing units at-risk of losing

their affordability covenants during the next 10 years.(7)

• Before the City pursues infill development it should ensure

that funding is made available to preserve the existing affordable housing stock.

• The Housing Element indicates that there are no specific City

monies dedicated exclusively to preserving at-risk affordable housing units.(8) These units should receive priority funding.

10

Affordable Housing Must be Protected.

• It should be amended to require condominium

developers to provide 40% affordable housing in the development before it is eligible for density bonus benefits such as increased height or reduced parking.

• The affordability covenant should be for 30 years

and not applicable to the first owner only.

• It should be amended to require a developer of rental

property to designate 40% of the project for affordable housing either through Section 8 or other housing assistance programs before it is eligible for density bonus benefits.

11

The City’s Implementing Ordinance For SB 1818 Is Flawed.

• Opportunities for co-op conversions should be made available

through programs such as the Washington, DC TOPA model.

• Tenants have an opportunity for home ownership or co-op

rental at affordable prices.

• The original owner of the building receives the same amount

as he would have received if he had sold the building to a developer.

• The developer selected by the tenants rehabilitates the

building.

• Tenants that do not elect to buy their unit receive a generous

buy-out.

• The character and scale of the building are preserved and

residents are not unfairly displaced.

12

Tenant Co-Ops Are An Affordable Housing Alternative.

• In addition to Specific Plans and HPOZs, Zone

Overlays should be included in the list of neighborhood land use implementation tools on 2-12 .

• Neighborhood Preservation through downsizing which

is for the purpose of preserving neighborhood character should not be restricted to communities where there can be a shift in capacity to another location within the Community Plan Area.

• We are pleased that the Housing Element provides for

Overlay Zones as a method of neighborhood planning.

• Studio City would like to have its Zone Overlay

Ordinance adopted as quickly as possible.

13

The Housing Element’s Cadre of Land Use Implementation Tools Should Be Expanded and Modified.

• We do not agree that a proposed project on any site in the

Inventory would be a “by-right” project. The regular hearing process should be followed.

• The Housing Element indicates that the required number of

housing units can be built without the need for any discretionary zoning action by the City.(10) Therefore the Housing Element should not enable infill development that can only be accomplished through zone code changes.

• Specifically we would not be in favor of an amendment to the

zone code that would have the effect of increasing density by such means as allowing granny flats to be rented or through the Alternative Multi-family Development described in item “D” on 6-11. The provisions of the Housing Element that effectively convert R1 properties to multifamily properties, destroying single family neighborhoods in the process, should be deleted.

14

The Transparency and Protections Provided by the Zoning Code Should Not Be Subverted Through the Provisions of the Housing Element.

15

Each Infill Development Must Be Evaluated Through the Land Use Committee Process at Both the Neighborhood Council and City Council Level to Prevent the Development from Creating Congestion and Parking Problems Whose Effects Can Not Be Properly Mitigated.

16

Congestion and Parking Impacts Must Be Taken Into Account Before Additional Developments Are Approved.

• Studio City is already designated as parking impacted by CD2.
• Most of our major intersections on Ventura Blvd. are rated F.

There is no way to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic that would come with any increase in density.

• Ventura Blvd. must remain our premier commercial corridor

and not be burdened with residential development.

• Studio City is traffic congested in every direction.
• Studio City is transversed by commuter traffic which

adversely impacts the safety of our residents as local streets are used to avoid the over-crowding on every major through street in our area.

17

Fixed Rail Hubs Should Be the Only Targeted Locations for Increased Density in the Sherman Oaks/Studio City/Toluca Lake Community Plan Area.

• Increased density should be restricted to fixed rail hubs.
• We object to the change in the Citywide Strategic Growth

Areas to include the Orange Line and rapid bus stops.

• Fixed rail has the ability to move more people at the same
• time. Buses move considerably fewer people.
• Orange line and rapid bus stops will not accommodate the

same level of density as a fixed rail hub.

• Increased density along bus lines will have a devastating

impact on our community.

• Increased density should continue to be restricted to fixed rail

hubs.

18

The Inventory of Sites for Infill Development Should Be Revised.

• The Inventory lists 385 properties in the Sherman

Oaks/Studio City/Toluca Lake Community Plan Area as available for infill development.(9)

• 69 of those properties are presently commercial

properties and two of them are designated as open

• space. Conversion of these properties to residential

use will increase congestion. They should be removed from the list.

• 10 of the properties are presently parking lots. None
• f these lots should be converted to residential
• development. They should be removed from the list.

19

The Required Number of Parking Spaces to Be Provided for All New Developments in Studio City Should Be Expanded and Not Contracted.

• The parking situation is so bad in certain areas of Studio City

that people park on the sidewalks, across driveways and even in people’s driveways. Additional infill residential development will only exacerbate this situation.

• We do not agree that locating dense developments near transit

stops will reduce the need for parking. Accordingly, we do not agree that these projects should have reduced parking and traffic mitigation requirements.

• The proposed MTA/Universal Development will greatly

increase congestion in our community and effective mitigation of the impact of increased traffic and parking needs is not feasible.

20

The Housing Element Should Be Revised to Insure That Open Space Is Preserved and Infrastructure Is Enhanced.

21

The Creation of Usable Open Space And Additional Parks Should Be Strongly Defined Goals of the Housing Element.

• The objectives of the Open Space Ordinance include:

providing outdoor space, reducing massing, and increasing natural light and ventilation.(13) Designing multi-family buildings in clusters can increase the usable open space and meet the objectives of the Open Space Ordinance.

• Studio City does not have sufficient open space and parks.

We recommend that pocket parks and other open space be located in as many places as possible including using them as buffer zones for housing located close to highways and buildings where increased density is achieved through height and mass.

22

We Agree With the Housing Element’s Goal of Establishing Development Standards That Enhance Healthful Outcomes.

• This should be achieved by increasing the number of parks and
• pen space, not simply by providing pathways and bikeways to

access them.

• Emphasis should be placed on the use of large canopied trees to

enhance air quality and to create pedestrian friendly zones.

• Natural permeable surfaces and green streets should be used to

reduce heat radiation and to enhance ground water absorption.

• Affordable Housing developed under SB 1818 should not be

disproportionate to the established neighborhoods. The height and bulk of such buildings reduce visual open space and create an unhealthy environment because they restrict natural light, reduce air circulation and constrict the growth of mature trees.

23

The 17 Acres of Studio City Property Zoned A-1 Must Be Preserved as Open Space.

• Every effort must be made to preserve this

important resource as open space.

• The area is located adjacent to the LA River

and represents a unique opportunity for interaction with the river as part of the LA- RIO.

• This prime location should be incorporated in

the LADWP’s water management system.

24

The Current Water Crisis Draws into Question Whether There Is a Sufficient Water Supply to Meet The Needs of the City’s Projected Population Growth.

• The Housing Element indicates “the LADWP has determined that there is an adequate

supply of water to serve the population growth through the year 2030.” (11)

• The LADWP’s report “Securing LA’s Water Future” calls for an aggressive approach to

meeting the increase in demand through: conservation measures, enforcement of water restrictions, investment in water efficient technology, water recycling and improvements in the ground water supply. (12)

• The City’s adoption of the DWP’s plan should be coupled with a plan to ensure that the

water saved will not be drained by new development.

• New water users on the system should be required to pay the marginal cost of obtaining

more expensive water supplies.

• Ground water reclamation technology should be improved to ensure that chemicals and

heavy metals are removed before the water is allowed to return to the ground water system.

• There are significant challenges to meeting the current demand for water at our present

population level.

25

Our Infrastructure Is Strained and Unfettered Development Will Push it Beyond the Breaking Point.

• Public services such as police and fire are already strained.

Response times are lengthening. Even in red flag season emergency vehicles can not get up the hills due to illegal parking which persists because of the lack of enforcement.

• Crime is up in the San Fernando Valley and gang activity as

evidenced by graffiti has increased.

• Many of our schools are at, or beyond, capacity so children

can not attend their closest neighborhood elementary school.

• Our utilities are also at capacity. The grids go down and

although we already have one scrubber in Studio City we still have odors because the system is not adequate for the current volume of sewage.

• Availability of locations for disposing of sludge can not be

assured.

26

The Topography of Studio City Is Incompatible with Dense Developments.

• Studio City along the river is the lowest point in the San

Fernando Valley yet the water table is high making the area susceptible to flooding.

• Much of the flat land near the river is liquefaction.
• Studio City has little rivers within the hillsides. The diversion
• f these waterways contributes to mudslides.
• As evidenced by the 1994 earthquake, the waves go through

Studio City come up against the Santa Monica Mountains and reverberate back through the area.

• Development projects of increased height and mass are a

danger as they are incompatible with the topography of Studio City.

27

The Housing Element Must Be Revised to Institute Procedures to Deal With the Adverse Impacts Increased Density Will Have on Transportation.

• Many road surfaces are in need of repair.

They will only deteriorate further and more quickly with increased traffic.

• Traffic signals should be coordinated to lessen

congestion at peak hours.

• Roads may need to be widened and left- turn

pockets installed.

• Smart crosswalks should be installed at

strategic locations to enhance safety.

28

A New EIR Should Be Prepared.

• There are a number of inaccuracies in the responses

to the CEQA initial study and checklist related to the evaluation of environmental impacts which should rise to the level of “significant environmental impacts”. We do not agree that the mitigation of these impacts has been properly addressed.

• The City’s own responses indicated that there are 11

“significant environmental impacts”.

• The checklist indicates that when there are one or

more “potentially significant environmental impacts” an EIR is required.

29

EXHIBIT 1 Housing Needed to Accommodate L.A.’s Expected Population Growth

New Housing Needed Household % of L.A.'s for Projected Size Households Population Increase 1 30.50% 34,705.65 2 27.00% 15,361.52 3 14.60% 5,537.73 4 13.60% 3,868.83 5 7.60% 1,729.59 6+ 7.00% 1,327.54 100.30% 62,530.85

30

Presentation Endnotes

Note # Draft Housing Element Page Number

(1) 1-50 (2) 1-2 (3) 1-7 (4) 1-7 and Exhibit 1 of this presentation. (5) 1-50 Table 1.27 (6) 6-19 (7) 1-42 (8) 1-47 (9) H – 97 (10) 3-1 (11) 2-32 (12) 2-33 (13) 2-10