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
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Key Community Issues 3 Preservation of Neighborhood Character 4 Changes to the Goals of the Housing Element 6 Objection to the RHNA Allocation 7 Affordable Housing Policies 9 Implementing Ordinance for SB 1818 11 Tenant Co-Ops 12 Land Use Implementation Tools 13 Preservation of Zoning Code Protections 14 Preservation of the Land Use Committee Process 15 Congestion and Parking Impacts 16 Revisions to the Housing Element Inventory 18 Expansion of Parking Space Requirements 19 Preservation of Open Space and Infrastructure Enhancements 20 The Need for A New EIR 28 Exhibit 1 – Housing Needed to Accommodate Growth 29 Presentation Endnotes 30 2
Key Community Issues • Preservation of Neighborhood Character • Affordable Housing • Congestion and Parking • Open Space and Infrastructure 3
A fundamental objective of the Housing Element should be preservation of the scale and character of the City’s neighborhoods. 4
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. 5
We Do Not Agree to Several of the Changes to the Goals of the Housing Element. • We object to the revision to policy 2.4.3 which removes “the preservation of 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
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. 7
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 1/6 th 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) 8
Policies in the Housing Element Designed to Encourage Affordable Housing Are Not Adequate. • 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
Affordable Housing Must be Protected. • 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
The City’s Implementing Ordinance For SB 1818 Is Flawed. • 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
Tenant Co-Ops Are An Affordable Housing Alternative. • 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
The Housing Element’s Cadre of Land Use Implementation Tools Should Be Expanded and Modified. • 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 Transparency and Protections Provided by the Zoning Code Should Not Be Subverted Through the Provisions of the Housing Element. • 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
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. 15
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. 16
Recommend
More recommend
