 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Phase 1, Village Walk |
Tarzana Elementary School Bridge |
Tarzana Community and Cultural Center |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 1, Village Walk |
Tarzana Elementary School Bridge |
Tarzana Community and Cultural Center |
|
Join TPOA Board Meeting Minutes Current Issues
Community Input Links to Other Tarzana Organizations: Tarzana Neighborhood Council (TNC) Tarzana Community & Cultural Center (TCCC) Woodland Hills/Tarzana Chamber of Commerce Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations Los Angeles City Agencies:Building and Safety Code Enforcement ZIMAS (Zoning Information and Map Access) Miscellaneous Links: West Valley Occupational Center Archives |
Recent TPOA Position Papers A list of all recent formal positions taken by the TPOA Board New single family residential construction vs remodeling Modified Parking Requirement District Proposed Ordinance Massive Commercial Elder Care facility in RA neighborhood letter Proposed Code Simplification Ordinance Proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Ordinance Proposed Community Care Facilities Update to Proposed Reduced Parking Ordinance Misguided Revisions to Parking Requirements
Planning and Land Use Management Committee Subject: Council Files 08-2020, 08-3386-S1: Citywide Sign Ordinance The latest revisions proposed by the Planning Department for the ordinance to revise and amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating signs contains a number of very positive attributes including: Sign Districts. We are strongly opposed to the grandfathering of additional special Sign Districts. Sign Districts that have currently been approved at the PLUM level should be allowed to continue under the provisions in place at the time of their submission. All others must be subject to the regulations of the proposed ordinance. Comprehensive Sign Program. Again, we fail to see any justification for exceptions for larger developments. Larger developments would have, almost without exception, longer street footages and thus be allowed larger signs than would be the case for small developments. The blighting and safety issues would remain the same as is the case for signs exterior to the developments. The argument for the need for larger signs interior to a larger development makes little sense. While the explanation of the Planning Department is slanted toward signs on college campuses, museums, stadiums, etc, the ordinance language is clearly meant to allow excess signage in commercial areas. Sign Modification. The current proposal refers to variances of up to 20% increases in height and area as “minor”. That is certainly a misnomer and a serious loophole. All modifications that increase the sign height or area should be subjected to the sign variance process. Right of Private Action. We do not understand the position against legitimate right of private action. The City of Los Angeles has a well documented reluctance to initiate legal action, despite flagrant violation of the municipal code. Budget constraints may exacerbate the City’s failure to act. “Frivolous” lawsuits seem rather unlikely given the cost of filing and the lack of potential monetary gain to the civic minded groups likely to file such an action. Delay in action until all courses of remedy are exhausted equates to a free ride for years for the offending parties. Digital Signs. We applaud the Planning Department’s new provision which would prohibit digital signage in R and A zones. However, the suggestion to delay consideration of any restrictions to the conversion of existing signs to digital or erection of new digital signs is truly unfortunate. These signs are a substantial safety hazard, a distraction to drivers and pedestrians in the area, a light invasion of adjacent homes, and an unconscionable waste of electric energy. The proposed regulations on brightness, message, and duration are fine for existing digital signs, but ignore the real problems created by the signs. We propose a moratorium on any new digital signage or conversion until a comprehensive set of regulations is adopted and subjected to public scrutiny. Sign Reduction and Community Benefits in Sign Districts. The original provisions of the ordinance called for removal of more than one square foot of existing signage for every new sign in a Sign District. The current revision emasculates the requirement by allowing substitution of an ill-defined “public benefit”. Essentially all of the postulated public benefits are currently required by existing code provisions. The proposed substitution of these ill defined and unnecessary “public benefits” is simply a ploy by the sign industry to gain additional signage without the need to remove any existing signs. The CPC and Planning Department recognized the lack of utility of public benefits in prior versions of the proposed ordinance. Removal of Existing Unlawful Signs. Removal of existing illegal signs is not adequately covered in the proposed ordinance or any prior proposals to amend signage regulation: elimination of existing unlawful signs. That is, signs erected without a permit or which violate the terms of the permit issued. As noted above, we support the suggestion of a study to ascertain a fair method of determining the legal status of older signs whose status may be uncertain. We need to remove the remaining illegal large signs such as billboards, pole signs and roof signs, but a reasonable method must be adopted. We also support the proposal that violators be given 15 days to remove large signs designated (and owner notified) as illegal. Small signs, such as sandwich signs and window signs, must be removed within one day of notice. The on-going city-wide effort to identify unlawful signage and the proposed study to map all off-site signs will provide the required information on which signs are unlawful. Sign Unit Funding. We are not sure that the proposal to create a separate funding source for a sign unit is a good idea. We are absolutely appalled at the proposal to fund the unit by private donations. Comparison of this version of the proposed ordinance jointly developed by the Planning Department and the CPC to the current version shows the overwhelming influence the sign lobby already exerts. How can anyone even contemplate allowing them the additional leverage gained by funding the organization that is supposed to regulate the industry? In summary, we urge the PLUM and later the City Council to abide by that old adage: KIS, keep it simple: eliminate the Comprehensive Sign Program and grandfathering of additional special sign districts, pass an ordinance incorporating the provisions that the citizenry of Los Angeles is crying out for, and, perhaps most important, vigorously enforce the provisions of the law once it is in place. David R. Garfinkle cc. Councilman Dennis P. Zine
Frank Bush and Grace Harper There seems to be a good deal of confusion as to what constitutes new construction vs remodeling of single family homes in residential areas. The practice of developers seems to be to leave a small section of wall remaining during the initial construction and to then tear that down as the construction proceeds. The result is an entirely new home, yet we see repeated examples of Building and Safety inspectors accepting that extremely deceptive and totally illegal practice. In addition, the developers often claim a carry-over of non-conforming rights that existed on the original structure. Let me discuss two recent cases in Tarzana. The first was a new home construction at 18920 Linnet. According to an e-mail sent to both of you on September 17, 2010 from Michael Tharpe (attached), Principal Inspector Preston Meyer of his staff sent an email indicating that the job address had an existing permit for a "MAJOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO (E) SFD/ATTACHED GARAGE" which was in progress (Permit Number 10014-20000-00452). Subsequent inspection indicated that indeed the entire original structure, including the foundation, had been torn down and an entirely new structure was in the process of being built without the proper permits. Yet the on-line Property Report indicates no activity at the address since an inspection on September 10, 2010, at which time the inspector reported “no violation”. A second recent example occurred at 19324 Oxnard Street. This was another total tear-down and new construction. In addition, it claimed non-conforming rights with respect to side yards. In the RA zone, as you know, a 10 foot side yard is required. The old structure only had 5-foot sideyards. I don’t know if that was conforming under the code at the time of construction of the original building, but my reading of the records indicate that any non-conforming rights are lost unless at least 50% of the perimeter and roof of the old structure are retained and at least 25% of the value is retained. I base that interpretation on Sec 12.23, Section 1223A3, and the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance. Pertinent quotations from those sections: SEC.12.23. NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND USES. A building or structure with a nonconforming use and a nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or structurally altered and a nonconforming use may be maintained provided the building or use conformed to the requirements of the zone and any other land use regulations at the time it was built or established, except as otherwise provided in this section. (Added by Ord. No. 178,599, Eff. 5/26/07.) Section 12.23A3 Nonconforming Buildings. Substantial additions and Baseline Mansionization Ordinance I did file a complaint with the West Valley office of Building and Safety that the 19324 Oxnard structure violated the 10 foot sideyard requirement. The complaint was filed with Martin Tack (I believe it was him, although he was not wearing a name tag). The number is 2 270113. Again, nothing was done and the building is nearing completion with 5-foot sideyards. The Tarzana Property Owners Association formally requests a clarification of the regulations concerning what may be classified as a remodel, and what must be treated as new construction. In addition we formally request a clarification of the circumstances under which non-conforming rights may be retained in new single family home construction in residential zones. It would also be helpful if there was a mechanism to check the disposition of violations that we report. Thank you, David Garfinkle cc: Councilman Dennis P. Zine, 3rd District
Reference: Modified Parking Requirement District Proposed Ordinance Dear Council Members The Tarzana Property Owners Association strongly opposes the proposed ordinance. We have carefully analyzed the ordinance and attended the hearings on the subject before the City Planning Commission and the Planning and Land Use Management Committee. We applaud the effort that the PLUM and Planning Department put into the August 9 Modified Parking Requirements District workshop. However, we were deeply disappointed at the totally one sided nature of the presentations. Where were experts who opposed the proposed ordinance? Where were the civic activists who have studied the proposal and would have to live with its consequences? Designating one or two activists who had given the matter considerable attention would have made for a much more balanced workshop. As a consequence of our analysis of the material presented at the hearings and workshop, our concerns and opposition to the proposed Modified Parking Requirement District ordinance remain the same. While the latest version includes some improvements to the original 2007 proposal and some improvements to the recent draft, it remains an unnecessary, misguided effort to degrade current parking standards. The key point to come out of the several hearings is that the ordinance is unnecessary; provisions currently exist to provide justified relief from current parking regulations.. The Zone Variance and Conditional Use processes consider the specific request for a specific project and allow provisions for public comment. The most telling point was, in fact, made by the Planning Department staff in earlier testimony before the City Planning Commission: they gave examples of the existence of those relief mechanisms from current regulations when discussing each point of the proposed ordinance. Our suggestion, therefore, is that the proposed ordinance not be considered further. The second questionable assumption, addressed in earlier Planning Department discussions, is that reduced parking requirements on new multiple housing construction would significantly reduce the cost of ownership of those units and increase the availability of affordable housing. Here the Planning Department played fast and loose with statistics, claiming that adding a parking space adds as much as $30,000 to the cost of construction and then multiplying that maximum cost by 2.5 to make their general claim that “ For a 2-bedroom condominium that requires 2.5 parking spaces, the cost of parking alone is $75,000.” While it may be true that there are isolated cases where the current parking requirements add substantial cost to construction, those units will require parking for cars that residents will insist on having. Should those cars simply add to the scarcity of current parking? Again, for those specific projects which are unlikely to result in substantial car ownership, the existing variance processes provides a mechanism for modification of the general parking requirement. Let’s not provide a general solution to limited specific cases. To support our opposition to the proposed ordinance, we would like to call attention to specific aspects of the proposed ordinance which we believe to be poorly thought out, with inadequate attention paid to unintended consequences. Single Hearing to Establish a District in Perpetuity: The first of these is the single hearing required for establishment of a Modified Parking Requirements District. The processes for relief from existing parking regulations consider the specific request for a specific project and allow provisions for public comment. The proposed MPR District ordinance would allow by-right variances from current regulations, once adopted, for each and every establishment within the district, with no City governance or public input. That does not seem prudent, considering the variety of tools proposed, cumulative effects within the district over time, and future situations not apparent today. Think how digital technology made then-existing signage regulations obsolete and the amount of effort necessary (and still underway) to remediate the situation. Change of Use: Consider the Change of Use tool. The first change from a low parking use (commercial, for example, requiring one space for each 500 sq. ft.) to a restaurant which requires an intense need for parking (one space for each 100 sq. ft.) or an even more intense use such as a theater (one space required for each 35 sq. ft.) may arguably be justified for the first facility within the district. Where is the parking for the potential overflow of cars, however, after the 5th or 10th or 15th change of use? For a modest 5,000 square foot building, what would make up for the extra 132 parking spaces (theater change) or 40 spaces (restaurant change) per changing establishment? Clearly, this provision makes little sense. Community Parking: Another ill advised aspect is the proposed provision for off-site parking for all uses within 1500 feet. Again, we feel that community parking may be a useful provision under certain circumstances. Beverly Hills, Pasadena, and Santa Monica all have provided public parking garages in dense shopping areas which reduce unnecessary duplication of parking spaces. However, note that these facilities share two characteristics: they are only in dense commercial areas and they provide parking at no cost (at least for a specified time) to the end users of the facilities. We note that community parking is not allowed under current parking regulations and urge that the effort be spent in a minor modification to the code to allow such use under existing methods for relief from current parking regulations. One further point: observations in our area indicate that the auxiliary parking cited in applications for variances are rarely utilized. Instead, people park as close to their destination as possible, further aggravating the local situation. District Size: We note that the most recent version increases the minimum size of a proposed MPD from three to five acres. While a step the right direction, that’s still smaller than the average Big Box store property. On the other hand, maybe there should be a maximum size! The effects of the proposed change of use provision might be alleviated if the district were small enough. Do we want a min/max size for every proposed tool? How complex can we get! Wouldn’t it be simpler to just drop the proposed ordinance? Commercial Parking Credits: The specific requirements proposed for this provision seem rather cumbersome. Conducting such an extensive survey of an entire MPR District would be extremely time consuming and require significant City resources. Perhaps more pertinent, where would the money go? Current pools of this sort (traffic mitigation, Quimby parkland, etc) seem to provide little or no benefit to the community. The fees often simply accumulate for years or, alternatively, are used for a questionable project simply because the funds are there and the provisions for their use are quite cumbersome and restrictive. Summary: In summary, we believe that mechanisms currently exist to provide justified relief from current parking regulations and believe that the proposed ordinance substantially weakens the ability of the City and the potentially affected communities to provide necessary parking regulations. Each individual request for relief from the current regulations must include public notice and hearings and the findings in each case must justify the relief. David R. Garfinkle
Zoning Administrator R. Nick Brown ReferenceThe Case Against the 18719 Calvert Street Elder Care Facility There are really three primary reasons to reject the proposed facility:
F. Conditions of Approval. In approving any Eldercare Facility pursuant to this section, the Zoning Administrator may impose those conditions, based upon written findings, which it deems necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood, or to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding properties or neighborhood, or to lessen or prevent any detrimental effect on the surrounding property or neighborhood, or to secure appropriate development in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan. Not the case. The proposed project is certainly not “in the best interests of the surrounding properties or neighborhood”, is not “necessary to prevent any detrimental effect on the surrounding property or neighborhood” and is not “in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan”
Los Angeles City Planning Commission September 27, 2010 Reference: Proposed Code Simplification Ordinance The Tarzana Property Owners Association joins many other associations, neighborhood councils, business groups, individual stakeholders and the findings of the City Controller’s audit in agreement with the stated purpose of the Code Simplification Ordinance. The provisions for decisions on applications for discretionary entitlements may be vague and/or contradictory, and the process requires excessive staff resources and takes too long to adjudicate. The approach taken by the Planning Department, however, is flawed. Basically, it emasculates many of the current requirements without providing adequate protection to our neighborhoods and the City in general. We believe that a strict adherence to the proposed Neighborhood Enhancement Core Finding should provide a simple screening process for all such applications. Unless the applicant can clearly show that the proposed modification will “perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial to the community, city, or region”, simply deny the application ministerially. The applicant could then appeal this preliminary decision, which would then go through a public notification and hearing process similar to the current process for variances. If the change appears to be essential or beneficial to the Planning staff, it should then go through the public notification/hearing process. While the purpose of the proposed ordinance is commendable, the wording of the seven core findings is often vague and substantially weakens and degrades the purpose of the ordinance as written. Let us walk through a few of the changes to point out some of the problems. Change #1, The General Plan Core Finding replaces the phrase “applicable regulations, findings, standards and provisions” with the much less specific and weaker “purposes, intent, and provisions”. Suggestion: rewrite the General Plan findings to replace the new phraseology with the “applicable regulations, findings, standards and provisions” wording. Change #2. While several of the findings may be redundant of CEQA, legislation at the State level is subject to change. The City of Los Angeles must retain the protection of those provisions irrespective of changing State law. Change #3. The Adjustment Core Finding is fatally flawed and should be eliminated. The purpose of the zoning, specific plan, and hillside regulations is to provide a framework of what is permissible and what is not. “Minor” adjustments often have unintentional or major consequences. The Neighborhood Enhancement Core Finding is key here: any adjustment, variance, etc must “perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial.” Stakeholders, including applicable Neighborhood Councils, Homeowners Organizations, Business Organizations, and near neighbors must have the chance to weigh in on the essentiality and beneficiality of any adjustments. Change #5. The Project Compatibility Core Finding degrades the current provision, substituting “will be compatible with and will not adversely affect” for the considerably stronger “no detrimental effect”. Change #8. Again a significant weakening of the intent, changing “exceptional circumstances” to “special circumstances” Basically, the 83 changes to the zoning code proposed substantially weaken the code, provide little in the way of requirements that the proposed modifications requested are essential or beneficial, and offer little additional protection to the adjacent areas or require additional mitigation. The proposed ordinance: In summary, the Tarzana Property Owners Association opposes the proposed Code Simplification Ordinance as provided. We have identified several specific flaws and provided a number of suggestions we believe must be included in any modifications to the Los Angeles Municipal Code whose purpose is simplification of the process to adjudicate requested modifications to the code for a specific project. We further feel that the proposed ordinance was prepared without proper public outreach and that substantial outreach should form an integral part of the review process for this proposed ordinance. David R. Garfinkle President, Tarzana Property Owners Association
Gabriela Juarez December 8, 2009 Subject: Proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Ordinance
We further believe that the bonus provisions of the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (as well as possible bonus provisions of the other proposed Mansionization Ordinances) be applicable only to ADUs attached to the primary structure and not to stand alone ADU structures. In addition no discretionary adjustments should be allowed; any deviations must undergo the standard variation application process with notification to other dwellings within a 500 foot radius and applicable Homeowners Organizations and Neighborhood Councils. We believe these provisions provide the proper balance between the need to preserve the character of our single family residential neighborhoods and the need to provide adequate housing options for our population. Less restrictive provisions entirely negate the concept of single family residential zoning. Preserve single family housing in the City of Los Angeles. Very truly yours, David Garfinkle Cc Gail Goldberg, Jonathan Brand
William Roschen, President Reference: Proposed Community Care Facilities The Planning Department has issued a revised proposed ordinance on Community Care/Group Home facilities. It is a significant improvement over the prior proposal. Of particular note are the good definitions, particularly the distinction between the various types of facilities and the limits placed on Boarding Homes and Correctional or Penal Institutions. However, the proposed ordinance still contains major flaws, all of which have been previously pointed out by various organizations. Our concern is about facilities that house more than six persons; we recognize that State and Federal laws severely limit the ability of a city to regulate those facilities housing six or fewer persons. The Board of Directors of the Tarzana Property Owners Association unanimously voted to request a further revision in the proposed ordinance to address several major flaws, including: 1. Licensing of the facilities. The report is replete with references to licensed facilities, but nowhere does it require that the facilities go through a licensing process, either at the State or City level. There is a vague reference to a “covenant”, but no indications of a licensing process. This is probably the single most critical flaw in the proposed ordinance. There must be a clear licensing process that any facility must undergo. Any existing or future facility not following the process should be notified and shut down as soon as allowed by regulations. We recognize the legitimacy and value of well regulated Community Care facilities. We look forward to incorporation of the suggested revisions to the proposed ordinance, to passage through the steps necessary to formal adoption, and to effective inspection and enforcement. David R. Garfinkle cc. Alan Bell, City Planning Department
Councilman Richard Alarcon Subject: Billboards: This is a repeat of the letter mailed November 25, 2008 The Tarzana Property Owners Association and the Tarzana Neighborhood Council have both voted unanimously to support recent actions by the City Planning Commission, the City Council, and the City Attorney’s office to limit the proliferation of digital billboards and clarify the current situation with respect to off-site signs. The Tarzana Neighborhood Council has submitted a separate letter outlining the TNC position. Specific Tarzana Property Owners Association comments are addressed her. We support: As noted in the City Council motion and in recent articles in the Los Angeles Times, Citywatch, and LA Weekly, the recent settlement with certain billboard companies leaves many questions unanswered including the underlying legality of the settlement. Among the points raised: In addition, we urge the City to vigorously enforce all existing ordinances regulating billboards and other off-site signage. Among the pertinent regulations contained in the current Municipal Code, specifically in Ordinance 179416, effective January 1, 2008: • Prohibited Signs. Section 14.4.4 specifically prohibits signs • Hazard To Traffic. Section. 14.4.5 indicates that: • Off-Site Signs. Section. 14.4.18. specifies: Finally, we strongly urge that a time period be established for removal of all non-permitted billboards. Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle  VENTURA/CAHUENGA SPECIFIC PLAN COALITION April 30, 2008 Councilmember Wendy Greuel Councilmember Jack Weiss Dear Council Members: For several months community leaders from the area of the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan (Plan) have been meeting to discuss the state of the Plan and have formed a coalition to address specific plan issues. It has come to our attention that Clear Channel intends to replace an existing billboard in on Ventura Blvd. in Encino with one that incorporates LED devices which are capable of rapidly changing the message on the billboard. The coalition is strongly opposed to the placement of such billboards within the Plan boundaries. Experience with similar billboards indicates that they have serious flaws, including distracting drivers and flooding neighboring homes with intense, rapidly changing light pollution. In addition, granting Clear Channel the right to replace the current billboard with an LED device will set a precedence for all billboards in the Plan corridor. We believe the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan already specifically precludes such billboards from the Plan area. Section 8, A 9 of the plan specifically states that “Signs having flashing, mechanical, strobe or blinking lights or moving parts” are prohibited. In addition, the Sign Manual of the Department of Building and Safety (Reference Number LABC Chapter 62; Document Number P/BC 2002-078; Revised 11/20/06) clearly calls out a number of illumination, safety, and modification provisions that would be violated. The Appendix to this letter contains pertinent material from the Sign manual. We call upon you, as councilpersons whose districts include portions of the Plan area, to adamantly oppose the proposed drastic change in the Clear Channel billboard in Encino. If our interpretation of the existing regulations precluding the proposed billboard is not correct, we ask you to introduce specific legislation prohibiting such billboards in the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan area. Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle,
Priya Mehandale June 2, 2008 Subject: Response to Notice of Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration The Tarzana Property Owners strongly disagrees with the conclusions of the Initial Study and Checklist (the Checklist) for this project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is simply insufficient; a full Environmental Impact Report is required. The situation: The project is governed by both the Encino-Tarzana Community Plan and the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan. The project has a variety of zones on various parts of the property, including C2-1, (T)(Q)R3-1, R1-1, and R3-1. All have the height limit 1. As such, the property has maximum limits on various project parameters, such as FAR, height, lot coverage, and setbacks. Note that various portions of the property may have more restrictive requirements, consistent with the current zoning of those portions of the property. The applicant is requesting a number of zone changes and relief from the various parameters. The table summarizes the current restrictions and the applicant’s requested variances on several critical parameters.
Note that the “Max. Density/Intensity Allowed by Plan Designation” on page 6 of the Checklist is incorrect. The maximum current FAR for “mixed-use” within the Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan (the Specific Plan) is 1.5. However, the project does not qualify as a mixed use as the definition (page 6 of the Specific Plan) requires at least 33% of the floor area to be commercial. The current proposed development is approximately 18-20% commercial. In summary, the applicant is requesting almost a doubling of the permitted FAR and a 60% increase in the maximum height. Specific pertinent areas of disagreement with the Initial Study and Checklist:
Summary: We have identified seven areas where the project has a potentially significant impact. In addition, the Initial Study and Checklist notes that an additional six areas that have a potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. Page 7 of the Checklist indicates: Thank you, David R. Garfinkle Councilman Ed Reyes Subject: Sober Living Facilities The Tarzana Property Owners Association passed a motion at our May 11th meeting to strongly support efforts to regulate Sober Living Facilities. There are several in the community of Tarzana, including one at 6145 Melvin Avenue. Other facilities have proliferated throughout the City and have become a problem nationwide. Typically, the facilities house up to 20 young men in a single family house, with inadequate supervision. Judging by the facility on Melvin Avenue, there are frequent fights between the residents, excessive noise at all hours of the night, profanity easily overheard by neighboring children, public drinking and drunkedness, and litter. At the Melvin Avenue residence the cloud of smoke from cigarettes is often so thick that neighbors are unable to use their yards. It is our understanding that facilities of this sort (daycare, assisted living homes, Alzheimer’s care homes, etc.) are limited to six residents and that any accessory living quarters may only be occupied for limited periods. In addition, facilities that offer drug rehabilitation must operate under State license. Sober Living College, the parent organization of many of these facilities in the West Valley, advertises “Drug Rehab for Young Adults” at the Melvin Avenue facility on their website. Their accessory building has been continually occupied since the facility opened. We strongly urge PLUM to:
Thank you, David R. Garfinkle President, Tarzana Property Owners Association
Proposed City Ordinance to Implement SB1818 In 2004 California passed SB1818, a law to provide a bonus to developers who provide affordable housing units in their developments. Each jurisdiction within the state must provide an ordinance to implement the state law. The City Planning Department has proposed an implementing ordinance for the City of Los Angeles. That proposed ordinance was approved by the City Planning Commission and is currently making its way through the City Council approval process. The City’s proposed ordinance, however, goes far beyond what is mandated by SB1818. For example, a new condominium development under SB1818 would give a bonus of only 5% in the number of units permitted by local zoning regulations if and only if 10% of the total units are set aside for moderate income housing. But the City’s ordinance proposes a 20% bonus, four times that required for compliance with SB1818. In addition, the proposed ordinance does not even require that new projects provide the same number of affordable units that existed in a building demolished to make way for the new multiple housing project. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, current case-by-case implementation of SB1818 is likely to lead to ludicrous results under the City’s proposed ordinance.: For example the Times reported that an existing 31 unit rent controlled apartment building was demolished to make way for a 59 unit building which provided only 5 low income units. The end result: 31 existing affordable housing units were replaced by only 5 affordable units-- a net loss of 26 affordable housing units while yielding the developer a bonus of 16 market level units above the 43 units permitted by-right. Decreasing the number of affordable units from 31 to 5, while providing the developer a density bonus, just does not make sense let alone create good public housing policy. Under the guise of providing more affordable housing, Los Angeles will lose low income unit and relax existing zoning standards such as allowing reduced set backs and parking requirements. The loss of affordable housing will be particularly egregious in older established neighborhoods by demolishing affordable housing buildings and replacing them with denser development with far fewer affordable units while adding significantly to already serious traffic congestion and parking problems. While the City’s proposed ordinance does restrict the resale price of affordable housing units for 30 years with a recorded deed of trust, the bottom line is the City’s current version would significantly reduce the number of affordable housing units. In addition, this provision would require monitoring and enforcement, adding to the enforcement burden of City Departments. In addition to allowing higher density projects, the City is proposing height exceptions, increased Floor Area Ratios in multiple family residential zones, and bonus incentives to be applied in high fire hazard and flood zones as well as in Historic Preservation areas. The challenge before the City is to provide an intelligent ordinance for to encourage more affordable housing in compliance with SB1818. A number of modifications to the proposed ordinance have been made by Supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky and others. Among the changes proposed in order for a project to qualify for a by-right density bonus are:
The bottom line is that the City of Los Angeles should implement SB1818 in a reasonable manner. Other jurisdictions within California have done so; so should we. On December 10th The TPOA Board voted to support the proposed revisions to the City’s implementation of SB1818. Editor’s Note: The City passed the Density Bonus Ordinance (Ordinance 179681) implementing SB1818 despite vigorous opposition from many homeowners groups and similar organizations. TPOA has joined one of two suits to challenge the ordinance. Update to Proposed Reduced Parking Ordinance What is the Proposal? For the last several months a proposal by the City Planning Department has been in the works to emasculate current parking requirements for new projects. The department and its apologists have taken the position that a carrot and stick approach is the only way to solve the current traffic gridlock in much of the city. The problem is that the carrots only go to developers while the general public gets the stick. Basically, the Department wants to extend a specific set of requirements for large Commercial and Industrial uses to all projects in all zones, including multiple residential housing. This ordinance would remove the maximum allowable parking reduction that can be requested (currently 40%) and would grant the reductions when “parking management alternatives” were provided. The “parking management alternatives” include such unworkable plans as bicycles for the residents/tenants and setting up van pool plans for the project. Metro transit riders would also be able to use the reduced project parking if the project was within 750 feet of a rail station. What are the serious flaws? The misguided Planning Department proposal is based on the false premise that public transportation provides a reasonable alternative to automobiles. While a number of transit-oriented multiple-family residential and commercial/industrial projects have recently been proposed, it is essential to keep in mind that Public transit must service both the trip origin and the trip destination. The existing public transit network in
The proposed ordinance has several serious flaws and misleading assumptions including: · Granting reduced parking for a specific project would certainly result in the additional need for on street parking in the immediate area; additional on-street parking is simply not available in most parts of the city · Who is going to ensure that the outside person who parks in the project is going to take public transit; opening up on-site parking provided by a specific building to any casual user would certainly reduce the available on-site space reserved for the tenants of that building. What happens to buildings with security systems operating the parking entrances? · Allowing alternative uses such as providing car pool vehicles and bicycles on-site would be impossible to monitor and enforce, even if they were adequate alternatives to personal automotive transport. · As recently reported in Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly, residents of current transit oriented projects own cars, need to park them on-site, and rarely if ever use the public transportation. The proposed amendment will greatly increase the parking congestion on already overcrowded streets, particularly in older established neighborhoods. As one presenter at a recent Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) hearing remarked, there are already areas of the city where people park on the sidewalks due to the lack of parking. So where are we now? On December 3rd the proposal was presented at the City Council Transportation Committee hearing. The public response was again heavily against the proposed ordinance. In fact, the ordinance was only one of several items on the agenda; the public response for each of the items was overwhelmingly against any plan that reduced parking. As an aside, an aide to one of the City Council people was heard to ask another “so, who’s for this anyway?” No action was taken on the proposed ordinance. So what do we need to do? Let your Council person know that your organization is against the proposed ordinance. Be prepared to oppose the ordinance when it comes before the full City Council.
Subject: Misguided Revisions to Parking Requirements We’ve all heard the mantra “build it and they will come”. Well, the Planning Department is working on another mantra “eliminate parking and people will junk their cars and take the bus”. Subdivision 17 of Subsection X of Section 12.24 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines the current City Of Los Angeles comprehensive, workable plan for parking requirements for projects. The Planning Department has proposed a misguided revision, based on a number of false premises and unrealistic expectations. Editor’s Note: Thankfully, this proposed ordinance seems to have dropped off the City’s roadmap. Public Transportation in Los Angeles is Inadequate The first false premise is that public transportation provides a reasonable alternative to automobiles. While a number of transit-oriented multiple-family residential and commercial/industrial projects have recently been proposed, it must be kept in mind that public transit must service both the trip origin and the trip destination. The public transit network in Los Angeles is simply not capable of fulfilling that requirement and is quite unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future. Extrapolation of Provisions for Large Commercial/Industrial Zones Makes Little Sense The proposed ordinance extends a specific set of requirements for large Commercial and Industrial uses to all projects in all zones. It has several other serious flaws including:
People Are Unlikely to Abandon Their Cars The proposed ordinance also ignores the fact, recently reported in Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly articles indicating that residents of current transit oriented projects own cars, need to park them on-site, and rarely if ever use the public transportation. The proposed amendment will greatly increase the parking congestion on already overcrowded streets, particularly in older established neighborhoods. As one presenter at the recent PLUM hearing remarked, there are already areas of the city where people park on the sidewalks due to the lack of parking. Reducing Parking Requirements Will Not Increase Affordable Housing The point was made at the PLUM hearing that reducing the parking requirement would reduce the cost of the building and thus increase affordable housing. How many people really think the costs savings would be passed on to tenants or buyers, rather than just adding to the developer’s bottom line! If this is a serious concern, the City should include a binding provision that the $40,000 or $25,000 cost of providing a parking space (both estimates have been recently cited) be subtracted from the purchase price of any buyer attesting that they do not need one and agreeing to have that provision recorded on their deed. Similarly, provide a reduction in rent of $250-$300 a month to a tenant who similarly attests. Of course, such provisions would need to be enforced, greatly increasing the burden on City Enforcement. Summary We strongly urge the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance. The public input at the PLUM hearing was quite clear: unanimously against the proposed ordinance. It will not alleviate parking problems, it will exacerbate them. It will not result in more affordable housing. In fact, in most of the City buyers and renters would turn down a residence where they do not have assured parking. Los Angeles is not New York City. Until adequate public transit exists, linking trip origins and trip destinations, such an ordinance is entirely counter to the public welfare. Thank you for your consideration. David R. Garfinkle |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
