Land Use Report – February 2021*
Pending City land use-related measures:
CF 20-1042 City Zoning Code Update / Ballot Measure (CF12-0460) https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-1042_mot_08-19-2020.pdf This measure seeks to place a ballot measure before the public that would allow voters to over-ride the current ReCode process and place a comp LA p
The City Planning Department, in coordination with the Chief Legislative Analyst, report back in 30 days on the creation of a measure to be placed on a future ballot to update the city’s zoning code. This measure should:
•Address the city’s desperate short age of housing as well as the city’s RHNA obligation.
• Bemodeled after TOC to incentivize broader community benefits such as affordable housing, high paying jobs, parks and open space and improvements to mobility and the public realm.
•Lead to an equitable distribution of new housing around the city based on high quality jobs, transit, and historic housing production.
- CF 20-1044 Land Use Reform/High Value Projects.
This measure would allow high value projects to bypass review at PLUM and go directly to Council.___ https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1044 For high value projects, the granting of entitlements can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The developers of these projects hire teams of consultants and lobbyist who often targets members of the PLUM Committee. In some cases these projects are very large and have citywide impacts. For this reason, it is necessary for these high value projects to bypass the PLUM Committee and go directly to the full City Council to be voted on. Comment: not a good idea.
CF 20-1045 Land Use Reform / Increasing Transparency / Processes and Procedures Ordinance / Update. Seeks to update the Processes and Procedures Ordinance with additional criteria on certain entitlements and restrictions; and establishing new protocols around communication between developers and council offices that takes place outside official meetings or hearings. .Passed by PLUM and Rules Committeeshttps://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1045
Proposed that the City Planning Department, in coordination with the Chief Legislative Analyst, update the Processes and Procedures Ordinance with additional criteria on when entitlements such as legislative actions and Conditional Use Permits will be granted and should restrict actions from moving forward unless It can be established that they are in the public interest or otherwise adhere to established policies of the city. I FURTHER MOVE that the City Planning Department, in coordination with the Chief Legislative Analyst, establish new protocols around communication between developers.
CF 20-0047 Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) / Tenant Protection / Standards of Compliance. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-0047
Regarding the replacement of RSO units in new buildings per SB 330 requirements. Also provides tenant protections in buildings to be demolished. Going to Council Housing Committee 2/10/21. To implement SB 330 in LA. Note: The City Attorney’s office has drafted a checklist for projects that fall under SB 300 that does not require the replacement of existing RSO units AND the added required replacement units under additional density bonus entitlement programs when a project seeks added density bonuses under SB 1818 or TOC guidelines. (If the checklist stands, there will not be any net gain of low income/affordable units after existing buildings are demolished; all that will happen is that the demolished units will be replaced.)
CF 20-0491 Covid relief Emergency social housing to buy apartment, motel and hotel properties in foreclosure for social housing. PROBLEM: Should the City be swooping in to buy properties in foreclosure and then displace current residents or should it instead be aiding the owners who may be in foreclosure as a result of tenants not paying rent (or themselves losing a job due to Covid?)? If foreclosure is due to rent hardship or job loss related to Covid, is it more appropriate to aid the current owner with some form of financial relief, loan, or…..
CF 21-0035 Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) Units / One-to-One Replacement / Affordable Housing https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0035_mot_01-12-2021.pdf
Referred to PLUM. (Already required in implementation of SB 330 BUT this is a good opportunity to remind the Council that the City Attorney’s current SB 330 checklist does not require replacement housing as required under SB 330 as well as any additional low income housing that would be required should a developer seek to apply for a bonus density (under SB 1818 or TOC Guidelines). The added density bonus entitlements triggers a requirement to provide additional low income units above the number of units replaced 1:1 to replace the lost units. (Otherwise the City will never increase the supply of low income housing units and will only remain constant while adding significant market rate density that has taken advantage of bonus densities without actually providing additional housing!
“City Planning Department, in consultation with the City Attorney, to report back on the creation of a city wide one to one replacement ordinance for RSO units. This report should analyze replacing the units on site and having the developer pay into a fund as well as its impact on existing inclusionary housing programs.”
CF 21-0046 Re: Housing Acquisition Program Expansion / Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). Approved in Housing Committee 1/27/21. Report from Committee posted. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0046 By “purchasing naturally affordable housing, the city can remove units from the speculative market, help insulate tenants from price increases, and create housing for low-income families.”
CF 21-0063 Re: City-Owned Properties / Unused / Underutilized / Homeless Housing. In Homeless and Poverty Committee 2/11/21. Regarding the use of City -owned properties for homeless housing.
While much of this land is utilized for libraries, parks, police stations, and fire stations, a sizable amount of land is unused or underutilized. The city has done previous analyses to determine if land is suitable for homeless housing and staff reports have shown very little land that is available for use. .However, the city needs to look at this through a new lens that is focused solely on the technical and financial aspects of building homeless housing – not future uses or plans. Furthermore, while there are restrictions on how certain land can be used, temporary housing has been constructed on many sites and successfully housed homeless individuals.
CF 21-0061 Standard Plans / Modular Multi-Family / Bungalow Courts / Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Homeless Housing / Affordable Houvsing – City to create pre-approved standard plans for the most frequent building types and make them free to the publicforthepurposesofreducingprojectcostsandacceleratinghousingconstruction.https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0061 To City Council Feb. 9, 2021. Requires relevant City departments to develop a limited set of standard plans for modular multi-family homeless and affordable housing, bungalow courts, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). DOE instructed to issue a Task Order of Solicitation to the iron call Architectural Design Services list to provides aid standard plans within 30 days and that the Bureau of Engineering also undertake a public engagement process to solicit feedback from stakeholders on architectural design elements that conform to the variety of a architectural styles in the City of Los Angeles.
CF 20-1314 (Related: 16-0684, 20-0189) Revised AH and TOC incentives. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1314
In PLUM 2-2-21. The Planning Department should evaluate the TOC Affordable Housing Incentive Program and its TOC Program Guidelines,and explore the feasibility of the formation and implementation of land use and zoning policy tools which may complement the program and facilitate infill transit-oriented development which consider differences in local neighborhood context and unique patterns of development, varying conditions in public infrastructure, local housing market needs and related factors.
CF 20-1225 (related 15-0499, 18-0788, 20-1071) LAs Green New Deal / Healthy Soil Strategy / Urban Agriculture / Carbon Sequestration / Water Capture / Composting and Mulching Operations / Development LA Green New Deal. Directs all related departments to work together to address the issues noted. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1225
In Energy Committee
CF 20-1106 Creates an Affordable Equitable Housing Protection Overlay Program and Zone to protect affordable housing and protection of RSO units. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1106
Referred to Plum 9/20. “to create a toolkit for historically disinvested commjunities, particularly those experiencing displacement and gentrification, that will result in increased community ownership of housing and businesses, aggressive preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, new access to open space, increased community control over space, and directly counter past injustices created by planning practices, as as to offer excluded populations their overdue share of the California Dream.”
CF 20-1184 Permits new uses/mixed uses in hotel properties
New Hotel Uses / Impact / Density Bonus / Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) / Affordable Housing. Referred to PLUM 9/20 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1184
Seeks to have DCP and CLA report back “on whether new hotel uses in conjunction with incentives based on residential uses have the potential to negatively impact the overall goals of housing promoting incentive programs and policies and consider whether hotel uses should be prohibited, or deterred and whether the programs should be modified such that hotel units in missed use projects also result in set asides of affordable housing units.”
CF 11-1973-S1 (Related to 02-0177) Adaptive Reuse Ordinance / Update / By-Right Eligible Conversions / Deed Restrictions / Moderate-Income Households
In PLUM 12/15/20. Expands adaptive reuse ordinance of commercial properties for affordable housing.”to prepare and present an ordinance to update the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance to allow eligible conversions by-right beyond those located in the six Specific Plan Incentive areas (OrdinanceNo.175038),if they meet the following proposed criteria: (1) all new apartments and condominiums shall be deed-restricted toModerate income households, 81 percent to 120 percent of Area Median Income; (2)The ground floor shall remain commercial, (3) Linkage Fees are waived; (4) Live/work, Artists- in-Residence, and hotel projects are not eligible forth is incentive; and (5) The building is at least five years old. “
CF 21-0063 City-Owned Properties / Unused / Underutilized / Homeless Housing (parks, too, if the land is not deed-restricted for parks?) To Homeless & Poverty Committee 2/11/21 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0063
Directs various City departments to “report back on the underutilization of all city-owned properties and the feasibility of using them for temporary or permanent homeless housing; and that ability to use a property shall be based on technical, financial, and legal feasibility and not future uses for any given property; and, that this report also analyze any previous studies of city yards and shops to determine which ones are underutilized, arranged poorly, or can be consolidated with other city yards”
CF 20-0609 Los Angeles City Charter Section 245 Subsection (e) / Planning Commisions Actions Overwrite Removal / November 2020 Election Ballot Measure Ballot measure proposal re: use of the 245 override. Sent 5/20 to Rules Committee. Regarding councilmember ability to override a decision of the planning process.
To ”eliminate the ability for the City Council to overwrite the action so of planning commissions and instead align the City Council’s oversight of planning commission decisions with the authority and process in place for all other city commissions.”
CF 18-0610 Right to Counsel Ordinance /Program / Tenants Facing Eviction
Currently in Council Personnel, Audits and Animal Welfare Committee. Instructs HCID to develop recommendations for a “right to counsel” ordinance.
————————
STATE MEASURES (summarized by Chris Spitz, PPCC)
SB 15: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB15
This is a re-introduction of last session’s SB 1299 by Senator Portantino that would provide cities with incentive grants to voluntarily rezone “idle” big-box retail or shopping center sites to allow development of workforce housing; cities would be repaid for lost retail taxes over a period of seven years. For a summary of the predecessor bill, SB 1299), see a support letter from the League of California Cities: http://blob.capitoltrack.com/19blobs/f0713531-b6c6-403fa17a-02c8385340fb.
Support
——
SCA 2 (Allen and Weiner) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA2.
This bill is a re-introduction of SCA 1 (also by Senators Allen and Wiener), which passed in the Senate but died in the Assembly last session (reasons unclear).
What would SCA 2 do? The bill proposes repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution – an outdated, 1950 amendment to the Constitution, originally sponsored by the California Realtors Association (CRA), that discourages public housing: it prohibits cities and counties from building or buying low-rent/publicly financed affordable housing projects without voter approval. CRA now supports the repeal of this Article.4
Note: SCA 1 was supported by a diverse coalition of groups/entities: City of Los Angeles, CRA and California YIMBY are all listed in the legislative analyses as “co-sources” or “co-sponsors” of SCA 1. Numerous other cities and statewide organizations supported the bill. There was no opposition.
——-
UPDATE: The measures have been assigned to the Senate Housing Committee, which Sen. Weiner chairs.
SB 10 text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10
SB 10 Koretz Council Motion: CF 21-0002-S21: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0002-S21
SB 9 Koretz Council Motion: 21-0002-S18 can be found at: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0002-S18
———————————-
SB 9
SB 9 is not, as misreported by media outlets, a “duplex” bill. It is a radical density experiment, unheard of in the U.S. Oregon is about to launch its experiment with duplexes on single-family lots. SB 9 allows three times that level of density on your streets.
In 2020, even the respected League of Cities misunderstood SB 1120, not realizing the fine print allows 6-unit density without hearings. Now some legislators are waking up to its copycat, SB 9.
SB 9 lets developers choose from 3 upzoning scenarios, without public hearing or public review:
- 4 stand-alone houses or 2 duplexes where 1 home stands now;
- 6 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats, where 1 home stands now;
- 8 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats unless a city rejects that plan
How can this possibly fit on a lot?
- SB 9 works hand-in-hand with existing ADU law, or Accessory Dwelling Unit law, to quickly multiply upward from a simple “duplex” to 6 units, and even 8 units;
- No garage required, just 1 parking “space” per unit, to squeeze in extreme density;
- No parking required within ½ mile of major transit, or in a designated historic district, or when the Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of another building;
- No yard required, just 4-foot setbacks, crowding up against neighbors;
- SB 9 allows speculators to create this density on lots as small as 1,200 sq. feet;
———–
At this time, Neighborhood Councils are not permitted to communicate directly with Sacramento. Neighborhood Councils can adopt motions to recommend that the City’s Sacramento legislative agenda include support for SB 15 and AC 2 and opposition to SB 9 and SB 10. (Koretz has already introduced motions to oppose SB 9 and SB 10 and your organization can support these motions (see above). A motion is currently moving from WRAC Land Use to WRAC Executive Board as follows:
The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) recognizes the need for positive solutions to the state’s affordable housing crisis, specifically as it relates to workforce and low-to-moderate income housing. Solutions should involve legislation that 1) focuses on increasing the production and supply of truly affordable housing; 2) does not compromise public safety or the environment; and 3) respects principles of democracy, local land use control and self-determination of local governments to expand housing opportunities unique to their jurisdictions.
WRAC supports Senate Bill 15 (Portantino) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 (Allen and Wiener) as examples of positive legislation that forward the goal of achieving more affordable housing consistent with these principles.
———————————-
LA City Policy Issues – Deadlines
Citywide Sign Ordinance CF 11-1705. PLUM revisions to the Sign Ordinance are likely to go before the City Planning Commission on Thursday, May 25 at their meeting that begins at 8:30 am. The PLUM revisions to the ordinance as recommended by the City Planning Commission eviscerate a balanced measure that placed new digital billboards on land zoned for high intensity commercial uses. The PLUM proposal would establish a new “Tier 3” Sign District that would allow for relocations (and digitalization) of existing signs onto most of the City’s commercial corridors and corridors in M zones. It undermines the City’s 2002 Sign Ordinance that bans new billboards by using “relocation” as a way to create new digital billboards in locations of their choice. The measure also introduces the potential of billboards on publicly owned land (which may include placement on public parkland(!)).
The Council File can be found at: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=11-1705
NCs have filed many CIS statements supporting the CPC Version B +. Unfortunately, those CIS statements are listed in FAVOR of the current PLUM version on City posts. It is advisable to pass a new motion to oppose the current draft ordinance from PLUM which was released in December and is being sent back to City Planning Commission due to the fact that PLUM has made such far-reaching changes to the CPC version. This will be the third time that CPC will consider the measure. CPC initially held three days of public hearing in formulating their initial recommendation and PLUM significantly altered that measure which caused it to return to CPC. They disapproved the PLUM Committee’s recommendations and sent the measure back to Council. The upcoming return to CPC is a result of PLUM’s new changes (that weaken the measure).
We do not know if, given the City’s fiscal melt-down whether this will influence current conversations about policy. We do know that during the last recession, billboard lobbyists and advocates were peddling billboards as a way to raise revenue for the City as it was making cutbacks.
LA City Planning Policy, Process and Procedure Ordinance update – Comments due Feb. 15 on the 600+ page document. A group of community land use volunteers have been meeting with Planning Dept. staff regarding the proposed changes that do more than aggregate former processes, policies and procedures and make changes to decision makers, notification periods, etc. This document is part of the ReCode process that is the re-write of the planning code now underway and being implemented.
Citywide Housing Element 2021-2029 Update and Safety Element Update
CPC-2020–1365-GPA; ENV-2020–6762-EIR
Comments on the housing element draft concepts presented are due Feb. 15
Housing element webinar is available for viewing:
Comments are due / were due in response to the METRO Recovery Task Force Draft Final Report Feb 8th The report can be found at: http://media.metro.net/2020/Recovery-Task-Force-Draft-Final-Report.pdf. There is a survey form available at: https://metro.cvent.com/surveys/Welcome.aspx?s=b6feb5db-31b4-4026-b0d5-7e656c05ed41
Relevant Information/ Programing
Livable California Feb. 6, 2021 presentation featured Professor Patrick Condon, author of recently published book: SICK CITY. (Available to download on Livable CA page.) The talk is posted for online viewing and is available on the Livable California website. The slides from the presentation are also posted at: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver-smartest-planner-prof-patrick-condon-calls-california-upzoning-a-costly-mistake-2-6-21/
Professor Condon has studied approaches to urban planning and analyzed experiences in various cities that demonstrate that added density does not reduce the cost of housing. He focuses on the cost of land and of the impact that upzoning has on land costs and the global influences on land in urban areas. “We have incrementally quadrupled the density of Vancouver, but we haven’t seen any decrease in per square foot costs. That evidence is indisputable. We can conclude there is a problem beyond restrictive zoning. … No amount of opening zoning or allowing for development will cause prices to go down. We’ve seen no evidence of that at all. It’s not the NIMBYs that are the problem – it’s the global increase in land value in urban areas that is the problem.” He provides examples of cities that have addressed housing affordability through their own models and suggests that current efforts to increase density will not address or solve the affordability challenges. (He is a former density advocate.)
———
References of interest:
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/167051/6817.pdf Practical Lessons: 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research
article reporting on Planning Dept. processing and on impact of early retirements
http://www.homeatlast.services/ Remember Stephen Box?
*NOTE: This is not an official NC document or the reflection of actions taken by any NCs. It is a compilation of information shared to provide reference to pending land-use related land use policy and legislation that will have an impact on local communities (positive or negative) if adopted.