On Thursday, February 2, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky attended a meeting of the North East Central Alliance of Neighborhood Councils held at the community meeting room of the Russian Orthodox Church at 650 Micheltorena. There is wide-spread speculation that Yaroslavsky may run for mayor and on Thursday evening he certainly sounded like he was rehearsing a stump speech. Among other things (his lifelong love for the arts, for instance), he talked about the current political push for "upzoning" in Los Angeles (that's when properties are re-zoned from a lower to a higher use).
"There is," Yaroslavsky said, "not a lack of zoning capacity by any means."
He was also asked about protecting hillside areas (like Silver Lake east of Glendale Blvd.), which are zoned for multi-units, from overdevelopment. Such overdevelopment, he said, is "not appropriate."
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Los Angeles and its "density hawks"
From the LA Weekly, 2008:
"In every city in this country, the zone on the land establishes the value of the land. In Los Angeles, that's not true.
"The value of the land is not based on what the zone says ... It's based on what [the] developer believes he can change the zone to.
"This is disastrous for the city.
"Disastrous.
"Zoning has to mean something in this city."
Goldberg probably wishes she hadn't said that, not necessarily because she got reprimanded by L.A.'s famously vindictive Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, but because Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy has repeated her words in public, over and over. Yaroslavsky, who represented the city's affluent Westside District 5 as a councilman until 1994, has been staging a one-man campaign to slow City Hall's feverish promotion of density — a quiet war on the large swaths of suburbia and few hunks of countryside remaining inside the city limits. With little debate, a trio of new "density enabling" ordinances (a real mouthful, known as the Downtown Ordinance, the Parking Reduction Ordinance and the Senate Bill 1818 Implementation Ordinance) has rolled through Goldberg's Planning Department and ended up in the ornate council chambers on City Hall's second floor.
Read the rest here: http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/bitter-homes-gardens/
City Hall's "Density Hawks" Are Changing L.A.'s DNA
Bitter homes & gardens?
By Steven Leigh Morris
published: February 28, 2008
Said Goldberg, newly arrived here from a similar post in San Diego:"In every city in this country, the zone on the land establishes the value of the land. In Los Angeles, that's not true.
"The value of the land is not based on what the zone says ... It's based on what [the] developer believes he can change the zone to.
"This is disastrous for the city.
"Disastrous.
"Zoning has to mean something in this city."
Goldberg probably wishes she hadn't said that, not necessarily because she got reprimanded by L.A.'s famously vindictive Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, but because Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy has repeated her words in public, over and over. Yaroslavsky, who represented the city's affluent Westside District 5 as a councilman until 1994, has been staging a one-man campaign to slow City Hall's feverish promotion of density — a quiet war on the large swaths of suburbia and few hunks of countryside remaining inside the city limits. With little debate, a trio of new "density enabling" ordinances (a real mouthful, known as the Downtown Ordinance, the Parking Reduction Ordinance and the Senate Bill 1818 Implementation Ordinance) has rolled through Goldberg's Planning Department and ended up in the ornate council chambers on City Hall's second floor.
Read the rest here: http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/bitter-homes-gardens/
Zev Yaroskavsky's gentler, kinder, less-dense Los Angeles
Published in The Los Angeles Times, 2008:
Don't be dense
The growth policies favored by some city officials threaten L.A.'s livability.
The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue. Fueling public outrage over growth policies that would significantly increase density are well-grounded fears that, in the clash between overdevelopment and neighborhood preservation, the developers will prevail.
Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings, bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.
Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings, bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.
There is nothing smart or elegant about such growth. On the contrary. It's development run amok and with an utter disregard for how it affects the livability of the city's neighborhoods. Should these efforts -- the city's version of a state law encouraging greater density; ad hoc zoning changes to double the size of residential development on commercial property to facilitate more density; widespread approval of zoning variances for parking, height and property-line setbacks -- succeed, they will irreparably harm some of our most cherished neighborhoods and diminish our traditional sense of place.
Read the rest here: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-yaroslavsky13
Read the rest here: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-yaroslavsky13
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A glimmer of hope?
This email from Erick Lopez, the city planner who seems to be in charge of the anti-mansionzation ordinances, isn't the answer to our desperate prayers. But it did give me pause.
**
Wow. Lopez is suggesting that the zoning in our area can be changed - if not quickly, alas. I don't want to pop open a bottle of Champagne, but it's nice to know that one city planner seems to take grassroots action seriously. In practical terms I think it's time to bring our zoning problem before the (full) Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. We need to get moving on our community plan and our zoning.
It's not that the City did not think of this half of Silver Lake was worth protecting, it's that the scope of the project was limited to the Single-Family Zones (R1, RS, RE, and RA). If the majority of the properties in that area are single-family dwellings, there are two ways to address your concern:
1) Rezone all of the properties from R2 to R1 (or some other appropriate Zone), which would also require a General Plan Amendment.2) Establish similar Multi-Family Zone limitations as those in the Northeast Los Angeles Hillside Ordinance, with some changes to be more in line with the new Baseline Hillside Ordinance.
I don't want to give you the impression that either of these solutions is simple, or can be done quickly, but they are two potential options I can think of off the top of my head.On a related and potentially useful topic, our Department is currently trying to build support to fund a comprehensive revision to the entire Zoning Code. The R2 (or Duplex) Zone is one of the things that would be addressed in those efforts. We are thinking of focusing more on the form of development and how that development fits in with its surroundings, in addition to the more conventional land use limitations. One of the primary goals would be to create more of a results-oriented Code.I hope this information helps.
**
Wow. Lopez is suggesting that the zoning in our area can be changed - if not quickly, alas. I don't want to pop open a bottle of Champagne, but it's nice to know that one city planner seems to take grassroots action seriously. In practical terms I think it's time to bring our zoning problem before the (full) Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. We need to get moving on our community plan and our zoning.
Our tax dollars at work
I recently wrote a city planner and asked some very specific questions about what kind of houses can be built in our part of Silver Lake (zoned R2-1VL). He instructed me to look at a city website that has no information about our zone (I had already checked) and added: "You can go in person to the zoning counter of the Department of Building and Safety, either downtown or Van Nuys." Why does a Los Angeles resident need to take time out of his/her working day to go downtown or to Van Nuys to learn basic zoning information? Sure, these are tough economic times. But putting zoning information on a website has to be cheaper than paying a city worker to explain zoning to residents face to face. Or are city planners just not interested in sharing information with city residents? I am going to go downtown, but I had to complain.
Garcetti's BIG dreams
Whether you're a fan of Jill Stewart and the Weeklys' owners or not, this article about the controversial Hollywood community plan is a must read - one section states that Garcetti lives in "tree-lined Silver Lake" far from the urban density he champions.
**
**
Should Hollywood Be Skyscrapers?
L.A. developers seek yet another Century City
A new Hollywood activist group
As you may have read here and elsewhere, the city bosses recently rushed through the new Hollywood community plan. The plan has not yet been fully passed, as I wrongly thought, however; it still needs to go through the City Council - so there's some slim hope that it can be changed. The plan has been sharply and vigorously criticized by some vocal Hollywood activists, some of whom have joined together to create a new website, People for Livable Communities. The community plan for our area, the "Silver Lake - Echo Park - Elysian Valley Community Plan," is (according to Silver Lake Neighborhood Council member Elizabeth Bougart-Sharkov) apparently set to be revised sometime soon.
I think it is extremely important that Silver Lake residents stay on top of the revision of our plan, especially if it's true - as the website for People for Liveable Communities states - that "The Hollywood Community Plan is just the first of 35 Community Plans that will cover every part of Los Angeles. It is the template for all the plans that will follow."
I'm going to try to find out when our community plan is scheduled to be redone. Meanwhile, maybe we can learn something from this new Hollywood activist group, which is hellbent on stopping its community plan. Here's a scary image from its website:
I think it is extremely important that Silver Lake residents stay on top of the revision of our plan, especially if it's true - as the website for People for Liveable Communities states - that "The Hollywood Community Plan is just the first of 35 Community Plans that will cover every part of Los Angeles. It is the template for all the plans that will follow."
I'm going to try to find out when our community plan is scheduled to be redone. Meanwhile, maybe we can learn something from this new Hollywood activist group, which is hellbent on stopping its community plan. Here's a scary image from its website:
Mayor Villaraigosa wants what he calls “elegant density”
The City reads your silence as support for this vision.
The Hollywood Community Plan is just the first of 35 Community Plans that will cover every part of Los Angeles. It is the template for all the plans that will follow.
The City reads your silence as support for this vision.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Meetings (choices, choices)
There are two Wednesday night meetings probably worth attending:
1.
AIA|LA Urban Design Committee presents....
THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN
-a roundtable discussion-
Wednesday, January 18 (6:30pm-8:30pm)
AIA Los Angeles
3780 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Limited Capacity. Please RSVP to Will Wright.
You are invited join the AIA|LA Urban Design Committee in roundtable discussion about the proposed Hollywood Community Plan. Kevin Keller and Mary Richardson from the Department of City Planning will participate in the discussion, as well.
The objectives of the meeting will be to learn more about the current status of the proposal and to identify an effective strategy for helping to broadcast greater understanding and support for the long term vision of the Hollywood community.
Rather than simply serving as a cursory presentation of the Hollywood Community Plan, the roundtable will serve as an opportunity for architects, urban planners, community activists and civic leaders to engage in an open discussion about how we can all work together to contribute to the civic discourse and reach a greater consensus about our social, environmental and aesthetic values that will help shape the future of our city.
To access all of the Exhibits and appendices to the Hollywood Community Plan please visit the Department of City Planning website and click on New Community Plans.
http://www.aialosangeles.org/event/the-aia-la-urban-design-committee-the-hollywood-community-plan
and
2.
1.
The AIA|LA Urban Design Committee :: THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN
- When: On January 18, 2012 from 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
- Where: 3780 Wilshire Blvd #800, Los Angeles, CA 90010, USA
THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN
-a roundtable discussion-
Wednesday, January 18 (6:30pm-8:30pm)
AIA Los Angeles
3780 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Limited Capacity. Please RSVP to Will Wright.
You are invited join the AIA|LA Urban Design Committee in roundtable discussion about the proposed Hollywood Community Plan. Kevin Keller and Mary Richardson from the Department of City Planning will participate in the discussion, as well.
The objectives of the meeting will be to learn more about the current status of the proposal and to identify an effective strategy for helping to broadcast greater understanding and support for the long term vision of the Hollywood community.
Rather than simply serving as a cursory presentation of the Hollywood Community Plan, the roundtable will serve as an opportunity for architects, urban planners, community activists and civic leaders to engage in an open discussion about how we can all work together to contribute to the civic discourse and reach a greater consensus about our social, environmental and aesthetic values that will help shape the future of our city.
To access all of the Exhibits and appendices to the Hollywood Community Plan please visit the Department of City Planning website and click on New Community Plans.
http://www.aialosangeles.org/event/the-aia-la-urban-design-committee-the-hollywood-community-plan
and
2.
Eric Garcetti speaks (mayoral race warm-up)
Money quote:
It's one of the reasons I've focused so strongly on giving Angelenos the understanding and the skills to do real planning. Real planning can't come from City Hall, it has to come from our neighborhoods. It's why we've reenvisioned public space in my district, with everything from CicLAvia, which opens up streets for pedestrians and bicycles to enjoy our city, to the Cahuenga alleyway project in Hollywood, which takes unsafe old alleys and turn them into great pedestrian thoroughfares, with vibrant businesses and cafes. That is part of the reason we looked at an Atwater Village parking program and the revitalization of Sunset Junction in Silver Lake. These are great, ground-up community planning projects that are the direct result of work my office has done- to develop a curriculum called Planning 101, which now is standard for the Planning Department to take into a community.
**
Eric Garcetti
It's one of the reasons I've focused so strongly on giving Angelenos the understanding and the skills to do real planning. Real planning can't come from City Hall, it has to come from our neighborhoods. It's why we've reenvisioned public space in my district, with everything from CicLAvia, which opens up streets for pedestrians and bicycles to enjoy our city, to the Cahuenga alleyway project in Hollywood, which takes unsafe old alleys and turn them into great pedestrian thoroughfares, with vibrant businesses and cafes. That is part of the reason we looked at an Atwater Village parking program and the revitalization of Sunset Junction in Silver Lake. These are great, ground-up community planning projects that are the direct result of work my office has done- to develop a curriculum called Planning 101, which now is standard for the Planning Department to take into a community.
**
May 2, 2011 - From the April 2011 issue of The Planning Report
L.A. Council President Garcetti Candidly Assesses City Challenges
As the president of the L.A. City Council through good times and bad, Eric Garcetti has remained an eloquent spokesman for neighborhood planning principles. With the ability of the Planning Department to do long range planning in question and a new round of budget contractions on the table, does the city have the resources to achieve its goals for improved quality of life? To detail the city's planning and fiscal misadventures, and, hopefully, celebrate the light at the end of the tunnel, TPR is pleased to present the following exclusive interview with City Council President Eric Garcetti.
Eric Garcetti
TPR does this interview with you on the very day that Mayor Villaraigosa has gone public with the city's 2012 fiscal year budget. Our readers are aware of the city's structural deficit and, thus, are interested in what you believe Los Angeles must to do to balance the budget going forward.
We need three things with our city budget: a focus on our core public services, like paving our streets; keeping those streets safe with police officers, fire fighters, and paramedics; and continuing to address our budget deficit, without gimmicks or one time fixes but with permanent structural relief. We have downsized the workforce by about 4,000 in the General Fund, not for cops and fire fighters. That is the same level we had the in last year of Tom Bradley's administration, when we had a million fewer people.
We have made tremendous strides over the last few years, but I have been a voice to avoid the one-time gimmick, whether that means privatizing parking structures or the one time sale of land. Such gimmicks avoid the real underlying issue, which is the soaring coast of our benefits and our healthcare. We need to focus on our core priorities, avoiding mission creep every year like we have.
Many Angelenos, reacting to the city's reduction in services and ever growing deficits the last two years, ask why the city's elected leadership haven't made the tough decisions necessary to responsibly turn L.A. around and to begin both to create jobs and to close the city's structural deficit.
There is no big city in America that has taken such strong steps forward on resolving the budget deficit as Los Angeles. No other city cut their civilian workforce by a third. I will always eliminate positions in the most compassionate way possible. Lay-offs have tremendous impacts on families and communities. If we can do that by shifting people to open jobs and special funds and proprietary departments that isn't avoiding the problem. Their jobs are permanently eliminated when they leave General Fund positions. That is permanent savings every single year.
We have done pension reform. We put on the ballot a new tier that will save us billions of dollars as we hire new police and fire fighters, which I championed. In the era of term limits, that is almost unheard of-why not pass the problem to the next generation of councilmembers and mayors, just as we inherited it from two mayors ago and two councils ago? Third, I have focused the conversation on healthcare. Pensions get medium and long-term savings, but healthcare costs are immediate. Our breakthrough agreement with our engineers and architects to pay out of pocket for healthcare and our tentative agreement that is out there would take from six percent up to eleven percent-on what we pay for pensions and healthcare benefits, I don't know any other big city in America that has done as much as quickly. If a company told you we're going to get rid of a third of our workforce in a year and a half, it would be too fast for the private sector. For the public sector to have done that is almost unheard of. This plan, this year, eliminates all furloughs, which means more services for our communities.
We've consolidated departments, we've eliminated departments, we've cut jobs, but we've also used technology in other ways to improve the services we're providing. That is a very, very strong record for all of us.
Many civic stakeholders believe the city of Los Angeles is in decline and without adult leadership. They point to the exit of experienced general managers, the decline of basic services, the rapid turnover of senior departmental staff, the absence of mayoral leadership on the fiscal challenges confronting the city, the contortions over DWP fiscal affairs, and the failure to create new jobs as evidence of that decline. They ask why L.A. is no longer a leading entrepreneurial city in the United States. Are these criticisms fair?
But I share the frustration of the general public about the city at large. I've focused on two things in the last year a half: jobs and the budget deficit. In terms of jobs, I'm proud to have helped bring new companies to Los Angeles, to have put forward a new tax category to inspire internet companies to stay and expand in Los Angeles, and to focus on the job training that we need for the growth sectors of the future-healthcare, green jobs, trade, and tourism. That is a space where we have to keep focus.
But I don't refute much of the criticism. We've had way too much turnover in general managers, and we've had an executive branch that has been less than focused. That's a frustration of being on the legislative side: you can be a voice for the people, you can set the agenda, you can do a lot in your own district, but at the end of the day, for Los Angeles to be great again, we're all going to have to pull together.
For the last year, the Mayor's Office has measured its business friendliness by how fast projects can be expedited through Planning and the Department of Building and Safety. Perhaps related, there is growing evidence of a corruption emerging out of Building and Safety. Can you comment on the pros and cons of the city's new emphasis on streamlining city processes?
I was extremely troubled to see that some of our building and safety inspectors were for sale. It showed a lack of leadership and oversight by those who were overseeing these departments. I don't think it's related to expediting, though. This is corruption in the old-fashioned sense, where people line their pockets at the expense of the people and at the expense of public trust. There is nothing more important to us than being trusted by the people that we serve. It is a sacred trust, and those who violate it should absolutely be punished to the full extent of the law. The people who oversee them should also be held responsible for those actions that happened under their watch.
Separately, we have to continue moving forward on making this city more business friendly. I was glad to see the Mayor's Office move forward with what we had called for in Hollywood with support from the community, which was to speed up the renewal of restaurant CUPs.
To help new businesses get established, I voiced a strong vision for the business community of development reform. Some called it 12-to-2, but the city had a series of failures in implementing that. What I'd like to see is to finally get that on track. I'm going to see it through, while others will come and go.
Your interview will accompany an interview of the new planning director of the city of Pasadena, Vince Bertoni, who last worked as a deputy for Gail Goldberg until she retired. Mr. Bertoni stated in his interview that the city of Pasadena, unlike Los Angeles, embraces both a cultural and political sense of the role of planning in relation to the entire city and also rejects planning case-by-case and measuring success solely by how fast projects can be expedited. Do you agree?
I agree with him. It's one of the reasons I've focused so strongly on giving Angelenos the understanding and the skills to do real planning. Real planning can't come from City Hall, it has to come from our neighborhoods. It's why we've reenvisioned public space in my district, with everything from CicLAvia, which opens up streets for pedestrians and bicycles to enjoy our city, to the Cahuenga alleyway project in Hollywood, which takes unsafe old alleys and turn them into great pedestrian thoroughfares, with vibrant businesses and cafes. That is part of the reason we looked at an Atwater Village parking program and the revitalization of Sunset Junction in Silver Lake. These are great, ground-up community planning projects that are the direct result of work my office has done- to develop a curriculum called Planning 101, which now is standard for the Planning Department to take into a community. We did planning 102, 103 and 104, which taught people about parking and housing, and really put the question forward: What do you want to see in your own neighborhood? Well, here's how you get it.
We cannot continue to separate our Planning Department from real planning. I feel like a broken record, but Hollywood's Community Plan, which was promised to me 10 years ago, is finally in the last round, but it still isn't done. We're finally close, but it shouldn't take a decade. We shouldn't be building based on a plan from 1987.
A new culture is emerging, though. This is a much more articulate city in terms of what it wants from urban planning than it ever has been. That has come from neighborhood councils, community groups, and, to their credit, the Planning Department's shift toward educating the city instead of just imposing projects. We could spend probably an hour going through my favorite projects that are a reflection of that, but the current culture is very different from the strip-mall mentality of the 1980s. Its time for us to make sure that uniformity doesn't just happen in isolated communities, like some of the ones I represent, but throughout the city.
One of the hot-button issues at the state and city level is Governor Brown's plan to do away with redevelopment agencies to help make up the state's budget shortfall. Your thoughts?
I worry if any of the money that would go back to Sacramento, if the move is even legal, would wind up in our schools. I don't think it would. It would let the legislature and the Governor off the hook for the deficit right now, and in no way would it be seen in the classrooms, with firefighters, or other places.
In the last decade, [the Hollywood CRA area] has increased tax revenues by 439 percent. That means more fire station support, more police on the beat, and more recreation, park, and library facilities for the entire city. This massive economic engine of Hollywood has roared back. Visitors don't just stay for an average of 23 minutes anymore; they stay overnight.
We're going to have a million more visitors that come through well-planned-out developments, such as the new Cirque du Soleil show, which will bring a million visitors to Hollywood who otherwise wouldn't have spend any money in the city of Los Angeles.
With redevelopment, you need to point out what works, but you also need to be grown-up enough to know when you need to walk away from it. In Hollywood, for instance, it might be time to say that we've reached the critical point: there are a few more things we need to invest in to make sure we don't go backwards, but then let's pack up, instead of saying we're going to be in business for another 20 years when that money could be better spent elsewhere.
You have a well-deserved reputation as an advocate for sustainability and green development. How is it that L.A.'s municipal utility, L.A. DWP, is still one of the state's most polluting and that its ambitious carbon reduction goals and programs have been scaled back, reframing the city's green agenda around rates rather than AB 32 and sustainability?
The reform of L.A. DWP is probably the most important place that we can get green jobs in this city and reinvest the public trust in what we do in government. Besides the trash getting picked up every day, most people don't interact with the government as much as they do through their water and power bills. L.A. DWP has had a wonderful history of economic development, but it has almost forgotten that it works for the people. It's forgotten its role in economic development. It was a very lonely place nine years ago, when Alex Padilla and I stepped forward to divest from Mojave coal plant. Ron Deaton, who was the Chief Legislative Analyst at the time, said, "Oh, you guys are cute and young and environmental, but I've got all my votes." Alex and I worked it and, lo and behold, we beat him. We got eight votes to begin to divest from a dirty coal-burning plant and start looking at green power.
The department, though, has gone in fits and starts. It hasn't focused enough on connecting green power with green jobs locally, so we're buying wind from Montana instead of putting solar panels up in our own basin, where people are out of work. The DWP has no overarching vision of how it wants to achieve a greener future. It has focused too much on rates and not on bills. People are willing to see higher rates if it means that the department will help them reduce their bills through conservation.
The DWP also has not been enough of a friend to business. Unlike most places that have private utilities that cannot be controlled by policy makers, here the Department of Water and Power could be a voice in the public process to attract new jobs. The overwhelming voter support for my ratepayer advocate and open budgeting initiatives is a really positive step forward. We have a super new general manager; I can't speak highly enough of what I've seen Ron Nichols do so far. I am hoping this is going to be the turnaround year, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the DWP, because that's where we're going to see job growth.
I just came from the White House, where I met about energy efficiency and conservation efforts. That is where we can get green jobs, today. Not sometime down the line, but right now, which also helps our bottom line and our recovery.
In closing, even Ron Nichols, LADWP's new general manager, has said that with regard to the slow pace of LADWP's renewable programs, the elephant in the room is Brian D'Arcy and IBEW Local 18. Can you elaborate on Brian D'Arcy and Local 18 influence on L.A. DWP's renewables' policies?
Where we get partnership from our unions, stepping up like they did to take raises in cash instead of in permanent increases, we should thank them. But we need to also acknowledge where we don't have partnerships in moving forward to control our costs. There's no question that the Department of Water and Power will have to reduce its expenses, and I admire Ron's initial focus on those goals. No one entity is so powerful that it can overwhelm the will of the people, as evidenced by the vote for a ratepayer advocate. People are willing to be fair to our workers at the Department of Water and Power; we have been and should continue to be. But we can't lose sight of reliability, of greening, and of making sure that we have accountability at the DWP.
There is someone on the side of the people now with the ratepayer advocate. I hope we have hired someone for that position by the end of the summer.
We need three things with our city budget: a focus on our core public services, like paving our streets; keeping those streets safe with police officers, fire fighters, and paramedics; and continuing to address our budget deficit, without gimmicks or one time fixes but with permanent structural relief. We have downsized the workforce by about 4,000 in the General Fund, not for cops and fire fighters. That is the same level we had the in last year of Tom Bradley's administration, when we had a million fewer people.
We have made tremendous strides over the last few years, but I have been a voice to avoid the one-time gimmick, whether that means privatizing parking structures or the one time sale of land. Such gimmicks avoid the real underlying issue, which is the soaring coast of our benefits and our healthcare. We need to focus on our core priorities, avoiding mission creep every year like we have.
Many Angelenos, reacting to the city's reduction in services and ever growing deficits the last two years, ask why the city's elected leadership haven't made the tough decisions necessary to responsibly turn L.A. around and to begin both to create jobs and to close the city's structural deficit.
There is no big city in America that has taken such strong steps forward on resolving the budget deficit as Los Angeles. No other city cut their civilian workforce by a third. I will always eliminate positions in the most compassionate way possible. Lay-offs have tremendous impacts on families and communities. If we can do that by shifting people to open jobs and special funds and proprietary departments that isn't avoiding the problem. Their jobs are permanently eliminated when they leave General Fund positions. That is permanent savings every single year.
We have done pension reform. We put on the ballot a new tier that will save us billions of dollars as we hire new police and fire fighters, which I championed. In the era of term limits, that is almost unheard of-why not pass the problem to the next generation of councilmembers and mayors, just as we inherited it from two mayors ago and two councils ago? Third, I have focused the conversation on healthcare. Pensions get medium and long-term savings, but healthcare costs are immediate. Our breakthrough agreement with our engineers and architects to pay out of pocket for healthcare and our tentative agreement that is out there would take from six percent up to eleven percent-on what we pay for pensions and healthcare benefits, I don't know any other big city in America that has done as much as quickly. If a company told you we're going to get rid of a third of our workforce in a year and a half, it would be too fast for the private sector. For the public sector to have done that is almost unheard of. This plan, this year, eliminates all furloughs, which means more services for our communities.
We've consolidated departments, we've eliminated departments, we've cut jobs, but we've also used technology in other ways to improve the services we're providing. That is a very, very strong record for all of us.
Many civic stakeholders believe the city of Los Angeles is in decline and without adult leadership. They point to the exit of experienced general managers, the decline of basic services, the rapid turnover of senior departmental staff, the absence of mayoral leadership on the fiscal challenges confronting the city, the contortions over DWP fiscal affairs, and the failure to create new jobs as evidence of that decline. They ask why L.A. is no longer a leading entrepreneurial city in the United States. Are these criticisms fair?
But I share the frustration of the general public about the city at large. I've focused on two things in the last year a half: jobs and the budget deficit. In terms of jobs, I'm proud to have helped bring new companies to Los Angeles, to have put forward a new tax category to inspire internet companies to stay and expand in Los Angeles, and to focus on the job training that we need for the growth sectors of the future-healthcare, green jobs, trade, and tourism. That is a space where we have to keep focus.
But I don't refute much of the criticism. We've had way too much turnover in general managers, and we've had an executive branch that has been less than focused. That's a frustration of being on the legislative side: you can be a voice for the people, you can set the agenda, you can do a lot in your own district, but at the end of the day, for Los Angeles to be great again, we're all going to have to pull together.
For the last year, the Mayor's Office has measured its business friendliness by how fast projects can be expedited through Planning and the Department of Building and Safety. Perhaps related, there is growing evidence of a corruption emerging out of Building and Safety. Can you comment on the pros and cons of the city's new emphasis on streamlining city processes?
I was extremely troubled to see that some of our building and safety inspectors were for sale. It showed a lack of leadership and oversight by those who were overseeing these departments. I don't think it's related to expediting, though. This is corruption in the old-fashioned sense, where people line their pockets at the expense of the people and at the expense of public trust. There is nothing more important to us than being trusted by the people that we serve. It is a sacred trust, and those who violate it should absolutely be punished to the full extent of the law. The people who oversee them should also be held responsible for those actions that happened under their watch.
Separately, we have to continue moving forward on making this city more business friendly. I was glad to see the Mayor's Office move forward with what we had called for in Hollywood with support from the community, which was to speed up the renewal of restaurant CUPs.
To help new businesses get established, I voiced a strong vision for the business community of development reform. Some called it 12-to-2, but the city had a series of failures in implementing that. What I'd like to see is to finally get that on track. I'm going to see it through, while others will come and go.
Your interview will accompany an interview of the new planning director of the city of Pasadena, Vince Bertoni, who last worked as a deputy for Gail Goldberg until she retired. Mr. Bertoni stated in his interview that the city of Pasadena, unlike Los Angeles, embraces both a cultural and political sense of the role of planning in relation to the entire city and also rejects planning case-by-case and measuring success solely by how fast projects can be expedited. Do you agree?
I agree with him. It's one of the reasons I've focused so strongly on giving Angelenos the understanding and the skills to do real planning. Real planning can't come from City Hall, it has to come from our neighborhoods. It's why we've reenvisioned public space in my district, with everything from CicLAvia, which opens up streets for pedestrians and bicycles to enjoy our city, to the Cahuenga alleyway project in Hollywood, which takes unsafe old alleys and turn them into great pedestrian thoroughfares, with vibrant businesses and cafes. That is part of the reason we looked at an Atwater Village parking program and the revitalization of Sunset Junction in Silver Lake. These are great, ground-up community planning projects that are the direct result of work my office has done- to develop a curriculum called Planning 101, which now is standard for the Planning Department to take into a community. We did planning 102, 103 and 104, which taught people about parking and housing, and really put the question forward: What do you want to see in your own neighborhood? Well, here's how you get it.
We cannot continue to separate our Planning Department from real planning. I feel like a broken record, but Hollywood's Community Plan, which was promised to me 10 years ago, is finally in the last round, but it still isn't done. We're finally close, but it shouldn't take a decade. We shouldn't be building based on a plan from 1987.
A new culture is emerging, though. This is a much more articulate city in terms of what it wants from urban planning than it ever has been. That has come from neighborhood councils, community groups, and, to their credit, the Planning Department's shift toward educating the city instead of just imposing projects. We could spend probably an hour going through my favorite projects that are a reflection of that, but the current culture is very different from the strip-mall mentality of the 1980s. Its time for us to make sure that uniformity doesn't just happen in isolated communities, like some of the ones I represent, but throughout the city.
One of the hot-button issues at the state and city level is Governor Brown's plan to do away with redevelopment agencies to help make up the state's budget shortfall. Your thoughts?
I worry if any of the money that would go back to Sacramento, if the move is even legal, would wind up in our schools. I don't think it would. It would let the legislature and the Governor off the hook for the deficit right now, and in no way would it be seen in the classrooms, with firefighters, or other places.
In the last decade, [the Hollywood CRA area] has increased tax revenues by 439 percent. That means more fire station support, more police on the beat, and more recreation, park, and library facilities for the entire city. This massive economic engine of Hollywood has roared back. Visitors don't just stay for an average of 23 minutes anymore; they stay overnight.
We're going to have a million more visitors that come through well-planned-out developments, such as the new Cirque du Soleil show, which will bring a million visitors to Hollywood who otherwise wouldn't have spend any money in the city of Los Angeles.
With redevelopment, you need to point out what works, but you also need to be grown-up enough to know when you need to walk away from it. In Hollywood, for instance, it might be time to say that we've reached the critical point: there are a few more things we need to invest in to make sure we don't go backwards, but then let's pack up, instead of saying we're going to be in business for another 20 years when that money could be better spent elsewhere.
You have a well-deserved reputation as an advocate for sustainability and green development. How is it that L.A.'s municipal utility, L.A. DWP, is still one of the state's most polluting and that its ambitious carbon reduction goals and programs have been scaled back, reframing the city's green agenda around rates rather than AB 32 and sustainability?
The reform of L.A. DWP is probably the most important place that we can get green jobs in this city and reinvest the public trust in what we do in government. Besides the trash getting picked up every day, most people don't interact with the government as much as they do through their water and power bills. L.A. DWP has had a wonderful history of economic development, but it has almost forgotten that it works for the people. It's forgotten its role in economic development. It was a very lonely place nine years ago, when Alex Padilla and I stepped forward to divest from Mojave coal plant. Ron Deaton, who was the Chief Legislative Analyst at the time, said, "Oh, you guys are cute and young and environmental, but I've got all my votes." Alex and I worked it and, lo and behold, we beat him. We got eight votes to begin to divest from a dirty coal-burning plant and start looking at green power.
The department, though, has gone in fits and starts. It hasn't focused enough on connecting green power with green jobs locally, so we're buying wind from Montana instead of putting solar panels up in our own basin, where people are out of work. The DWP has no overarching vision of how it wants to achieve a greener future. It has focused too much on rates and not on bills. People are willing to see higher rates if it means that the department will help them reduce their bills through conservation.
The DWP also has not been enough of a friend to business. Unlike most places that have private utilities that cannot be controlled by policy makers, here the Department of Water and Power could be a voice in the public process to attract new jobs. The overwhelming voter support for my ratepayer advocate and open budgeting initiatives is a really positive step forward. We have a super new general manager; I can't speak highly enough of what I've seen Ron Nichols do so far. I am hoping this is going to be the turnaround year, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the DWP, because that's where we're going to see job growth.
I just came from the White House, where I met about energy efficiency and conservation efforts. That is where we can get green jobs, today. Not sometime down the line, but right now, which also helps our bottom line and our recovery.
In closing, even Ron Nichols, LADWP's new general manager, has said that with regard to the slow pace of LADWP's renewable programs, the elephant in the room is Brian D'Arcy and IBEW Local 18. Can you elaborate on Brian D'Arcy and Local 18 influence on L.A. DWP's renewables' policies?
Where we get partnership from our unions, stepping up like they did to take raises in cash instead of in permanent increases, we should thank them. But we need to also acknowledge where we don't have partnerships in moving forward to control our costs. There's no question that the Department of Water and Power will have to reduce its expenses, and I admire Ron's initial focus on those goals. No one entity is so powerful that it can overwhelm the will of the people, as evidenced by the vote for a ratepayer advocate. People are willing to be fair to our workers at the Department of Water and Power; we have been and should continue to be. But we can't lose sight of reliability, of greening, and of making sure that we have accountability at the DWP.
There is someone on the side of the people now with the ratepayer advocate. I hope we have hired someone for that position by the end of the summer.
The bigger picture
I realize that some of the wider city stories that I'm posting may seem off point to our immediate Silver Lake concerns, but I don't believe that they are. The city is in the midst of revising its several dozen community plans; it recently passed approved the updated Hollywood Community plan, which was met with vigorous neighborhood protest. The Silver Lake - Echo Park - Eysian Valley community plan will be up for revision in the future, though it's unclear when. We need to be prepared to push back against proposals we don't like. But first we have to understand what is at stake, and perhaps why. This story, which touches on gentrification in Silver Lake (see the boldfaced paragraphs below) helps fill in the blanks.
**
Larry Kaplan: Redistricting Reflects The State’s Demographic and Economic New Realities
**
Larry Kaplan: Redistricting Reflects The State’s Demographic and Economic New Realities
"...Legislators in slow growth areas find their districts looking quite different, or even pull out from under them, while there are new opportunities for new legislative candidates in quickly growing areas." -Larry Kaplan
Now that redistricting season is over, the focus is on the possible results—usually in the context of the partisan horse race: how many seats will the Democrats and Republicans end up with in both houses of the Legislature and in California’s Congressional delegation in Washington? Who loses their seats in the high stakes game of musical chairs? Berman or Sherman? Osborne or Butler? It’s all part of the decennial ritual for political junkies across America and here in Southern California.
Locally, the County of Los Angeles just went through a contentious redistricting process that is likely not over, with a lawsuit in the wings. And the City of Los Angeles, along with other local cities that have councilmembers elected by district, is gearing up its own effort for the 2013 election cycle.
But there is a story behind the numbers that is much more profound than the tally of political winners and losers. It goes to the heart of the U.S. Census and how it reflects the dramatically changing socio-economic demographics of American society, especially in rapidly changing California. And in a case of being victimized by your own success, it’s a story about how the revitalization and gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods, which involves de-densification, and the dramatic growth in the outlying exurbs, may ironically diminish the political clout of voters and political leaders in such traditionally powerful places as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and San Francisco.
It’s the basic job of the Census to conduct an “enumeration” every ten years, as spelled out in the Constitution. From that count, Congress, the 50 state legislatures and thousands of local jurisdictions determine the populations and configurations of districts. The process of redrawing district lines every ten years has evolved into a highly political process—everyone has heard of gerrymandering, although the voters in California elected to place the responsibility for redrawing those new lines in the hands of a bi-partisan commission, rather than the State Legislature, in order to avoid that. That commission presented its maps this past summer, with lines dramatically different from the status quo. Most impartial observers say they did a pretty fair job of it.
But, the Census has become much more complicated and comprehensive in the 220 years since the first one was completed. The U.S. Bureau of the Census counts all sorts of things nowadays, including race and ethnicity, household incomes, housing stock and educational levels. Race and ethnicity in particular play a direct role in the drawing of district lines by law—district configurations must ensure that representatives reflect and include America’s diversity, and adhere to the Voting Rights Act.
All of the factors measured by the Census illustrate the continuous evolution of American (especially California) society, and this change is ultimately reflected in the new political boundaries that are drawn up and the types of people who will be elected in these new districts. To students of sociology and urban planning, that’s the part that’s much more interesting than whether or not the new lines change the balance of power in Sacramento or Washington.
In short, the changes in American society that the Census numbers show will eventually be reflected in the halls of Congress, on the floor of the State Legislature and at City Hall. Sometimes this change leads to dramatic reconfiguration of districts and unfamiliar new faces elected to public office.
Followers of the redistricting process know quite well that the dramatic growth in the inland portions of California significantly outpaced the slow growth in the coastal regions over the past two decades. Because of that, legislative districts in places like Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area have fewer residents than they should have, while districts in places like the Inland Empire and Central Valley have more—the redistricting folks call that “undercount” and “over-count” respectively.
In California, each Congressional district is supposed to have 700,000 people (the State’s population of 37.8 million divided by its delegation of 54); if a district doesn’t, it has to be reconfigured, either expanding or contracting geographically to gain or lose population. That results in fewer districts in slow, or negative, growth areas of the State and more districts in rapidly growing areas. That means legislators in slow growth areas find their districts looking quite different, or even pulled out from under them, while there are new opportunities for new legislative candidates in quickly growing areas.
One of the most interesting examples, particularly for Southern Californians: the Census Bureau reported that in Los Angeles County, the Congressional district with the biggest undercount was the old 31st, represented by Xavier Becerra. According to the current census, it had 611,000 residents, or 89,000 under what it should have had (it had 640,000 in the 2000 Census). The State Senate district with the biggest undercount was the old 22nd, represented by Kevin de Leon; it had less than 845,000 residents instead of the 930,000 it should have had, about 85,000 under. The Assembly district with the biggest undercount was the old 45th, represented by Gil Cedillo; it had 406,000 (down from 423,000) residents, or nearly 60,000 under its target size of 465,000.
A few weeks after these numbers were released in the spring, the City of Los Angeles released its population numbers for its upcoming redistricting process. That report showed that the 13th Council District, represented by Council President Eric Garcetti, had 225,000 residents, or nearly 30,000 under its target of 253,000. Now, all four of these districts had three things in common: one, they were represented by Democrats, which is not really relevant; two, they were all between 8 and 13% under their targeted populations.
And three, they all shared these six neighborhoods, in whole or in part: East Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Atwater, Glassell Park and Mount Washington. Anyone who follows real estate trends, or is a student of L.A.’s development patterns, or who reads the Planning Report regularly, knows that these are some of the most dramatically—one could even say aggressively—gentrifying neighborhoods in all of Southern California.
So what happened between 1990, 2000 and 2010? Large working-class, mostly Latino, families moved out and small upscale households moved in, as property values and housing costs skyrocketed with the real estate bubble. Instead of multi-generational families with several children, you saw hipster and gay or lesbian couples, or empty nesters as mom and dad stayed while the kids set up their own family households in other parts of the region (many of those offspring went to the Inland Empire, which saw large increases in its overall population and in the number of Latinos). As one observer wryly observed, “there are cars in all those garages again.” [They haven't seen the garages on Hidalgo!]
Echo Park saw the most dramatic gentrification and lost 10% of its population. Many other demographic indicators in Echo Park changed, as well: the median household income rose along with the number of college degrees, while households with children under 18 plummeted. At the same time, housing densities did not increase, as they did in the Inland Empire, probably due to more restrictive community plans, particularly in residential hillside neighborhoods.
Needless to say, the newly numbered districts representing those communities look quite different today. But, while the changes were most apparent in those neighborhoods north and west of Downtown L.A., gentrification had impacts on legislative seats all over L.A. County:
• The districts representing Pasadena and the western San Gabriel Valley. Pasadena has been obviously gentrifying, while many towns in the west San Gabriel Valley, such as Alhambra and Monterey Park, have transitioned from being largely working-class Latino with large families to middle-class Asian with smaller families living in larger homes.
• Districts in southeast L.A. County, covering such communities as Whittier, Cerritos and parts of Long Beach, also saw undercounts, albeit not as dramatic as others. These areas gentrified in the more generic sense (the dictionary definition of gentrification is the “socio-cultural displacement that results when wealthier people acquire property in low income and working class communities”); in southeast L.A. County, it was the case of more established, assimilated and smaller middle-class Latino and Asian families replacing first generation immigrants.
This pattern has been repeated all over California, from the San Francisco Peninsula, Oakland and the East Bay to San Diego and Orange County—as all these coastal communities have become more expensive and more exclusive, population growth slowed and stabilized, while people moved out to inland areas of the State. In L.A. County alone, there was a shift of one Congressional, one State Senate and one and a half Assembly districts to inland areas. Those districts ended up in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In short, these coastal regions stand to lose political clout because they have fewer members representing them in both capitols.
What does this all mean for partisan politics and urban development policy? It may not mean much—some are saying that most of the growth in the inland areas has been Latino, and that trends heavily Democratic. However, it could mean a different type of Democrat. While Democrats from highly urbanized coastal communities tended to be very progressive, pro-labor, liberal on social issues and strong environmentalists, Democrats from suburban inland communities are more middle-of-the road, more conservative on social issues and more focused on job creation and public education.
It’s possible to see shifting support on certain issues based on the diminished clout of inner-city representation and the growth of suburban and exurban legislators—a good example could be in the area of transportation, where mass transit, long the focus of urban politicians, continuously competes for funding against highways, which generally enjoy more support from the hinterlands. The same might be true of housing and redevelopment programs, reflecting the very different economies and built environments of cities and suburbs and their respective constituencies.
Or what about something like SB 375, which seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by encouraging the development of more compact communities. While it has enjoyed broad support from urban politicians, it has met resistance from suburban, exurban and rural leaders. Might a subtle shift in power from the coastal cities to the inland suburbs impact how well SB 375 is implemented and result in fewer state incentives for local smart growth policies?
Redistricting does its job if it genuinely reflects the socio-economic and demographic shifts reported in the Census. The renaissance of America’s big cities, characterized by gentrification of once depressed neighborhoods and an infusion of new wealth, vitality and social capital by what urbanist Richard Florida calls the “creative class” is mostly a good thing. But it also reflects a fundamental truth: middle- and working-class families have had to move on to more affordable pastures in the suburbs and exurbs. And with their kids, they’ll be taking their political clout with them.
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/10/10/larry-kaplan-redistricting-reflects-state-s-demographic-and-economic-new-realities
Locally, the County of Los Angeles just went through a contentious redistricting process that is likely not over, with a lawsuit in the wings. And the City of Los Angeles, along with other local cities that have councilmembers elected by district, is gearing up its own effort for the 2013 election cycle.
But there is a story behind the numbers that is much more profound than the tally of political winners and losers. It goes to the heart of the U.S. Census and how it reflects the dramatically changing socio-economic demographics of American society, especially in rapidly changing California. And in a case of being victimized by your own success, it’s a story about how the revitalization and gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods, which involves de-densification, and the dramatic growth in the outlying exurbs, may ironically diminish the political clout of voters and political leaders in such traditionally powerful places as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and San Francisco.
It’s the basic job of the Census to conduct an “enumeration” every ten years, as spelled out in the Constitution. From that count, Congress, the 50 state legislatures and thousands of local jurisdictions determine the populations and configurations of districts. The process of redrawing district lines every ten years has evolved into a highly political process—everyone has heard of gerrymandering, although the voters in California elected to place the responsibility for redrawing those new lines in the hands of a bi-partisan commission, rather than the State Legislature, in order to avoid that. That commission presented its maps this past summer, with lines dramatically different from the status quo. Most impartial observers say they did a pretty fair job of it.
But, the Census has become much more complicated and comprehensive in the 220 years since the first one was completed. The U.S. Bureau of the Census counts all sorts of things nowadays, including race and ethnicity, household incomes, housing stock and educational levels. Race and ethnicity in particular play a direct role in the drawing of district lines by law—district configurations must ensure that representatives reflect and include America’s diversity, and adhere to the Voting Rights Act.
All of the factors measured by the Census illustrate the continuous evolution of American (especially California) society, and this change is ultimately reflected in the new political boundaries that are drawn up and the types of people who will be elected in these new districts. To students of sociology and urban planning, that’s the part that’s much more interesting than whether or not the new lines change the balance of power in Sacramento or Washington.
In short, the changes in American society that the Census numbers show will eventually be reflected in the halls of Congress, on the floor of the State Legislature and at City Hall. Sometimes this change leads to dramatic reconfiguration of districts and unfamiliar new faces elected to public office.
Followers of the redistricting process know quite well that the dramatic growth in the inland portions of California significantly outpaced the slow growth in the coastal regions over the past two decades. Because of that, legislative districts in places like Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area have fewer residents than they should have, while districts in places like the Inland Empire and Central Valley have more—the redistricting folks call that “undercount” and “over-count” respectively.
In California, each Congressional district is supposed to have 700,000 people (the State’s population of 37.8 million divided by its delegation of 54); if a district doesn’t, it has to be reconfigured, either expanding or contracting geographically to gain or lose population. That results in fewer districts in slow, or negative, growth areas of the State and more districts in rapidly growing areas. That means legislators in slow growth areas find their districts looking quite different, or even pulled out from under them, while there are new opportunities for new legislative candidates in quickly growing areas.
One of the most interesting examples, particularly for Southern Californians: the Census Bureau reported that in Los Angeles County, the Congressional district with the biggest undercount was the old 31st, represented by Xavier Becerra. According to the current census, it had 611,000 residents, or 89,000 under what it should have had (it had 640,000 in the 2000 Census). The State Senate district with the biggest undercount was the old 22nd, represented by Kevin de Leon; it had less than 845,000 residents instead of the 930,000 it should have had, about 85,000 under. The Assembly district with the biggest undercount was the old 45th, represented by Gil Cedillo; it had 406,000 (down from 423,000) residents, or nearly 60,000 under its target size of 465,000.
A few weeks after these numbers were released in the spring, the City of Los Angeles released its population numbers for its upcoming redistricting process. That report showed that the 13th Council District, represented by Council President Eric Garcetti, had 225,000 residents, or nearly 30,000 under its target of 253,000. Now, all four of these districts had three things in common: one, they were represented by Democrats, which is not really relevant; two, they were all between 8 and 13% under their targeted populations.
And three, they all shared these six neighborhoods, in whole or in part: East Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Atwater, Glassell Park and Mount Washington. Anyone who follows real estate trends, or is a student of L.A.’s development patterns, or who reads the Planning Report regularly, knows that these are some of the most dramatically—one could even say aggressively—gentrifying neighborhoods in all of Southern California.
So what happened between 1990, 2000 and 2010? Large working-class, mostly Latino, families moved out and small upscale households moved in, as property values and housing costs skyrocketed with the real estate bubble. Instead of multi-generational families with several children, you saw hipster and gay or lesbian couples, or empty nesters as mom and dad stayed while the kids set up their own family households in other parts of the region (many of those offspring went to the Inland Empire, which saw large increases in its overall population and in the number of Latinos). As one observer wryly observed, “there are cars in all those garages again.” [They haven't seen the garages on Hidalgo!]
Echo Park saw the most dramatic gentrification and lost 10% of its population. Many other demographic indicators in Echo Park changed, as well: the median household income rose along with the number of college degrees, while households with children under 18 plummeted. At the same time, housing densities did not increase, as they did in the Inland Empire, probably due to more restrictive community plans, particularly in residential hillside neighborhoods.
Needless to say, the newly numbered districts representing those communities look quite different today. But, while the changes were most apparent in those neighborhoods north and west of Downtown L.A., gentrification had impacts on legislative seats all over L.A. County:
• The districts representing Pasadena and the western San Gabriel Valley. Pasadena has been obviously gentrifying, while many towns in the west San Gabriel Valley, such as Alhambra and Monterey Park, have transitioned from being largely working-class Latino with large families to middle-class Asian with smaller families living in larger homes.
• Districts in southeast L.A. County, covering such communities as Whittier, Cerritos and parts of Long Beach, also saw undercounts, albeit not as dramatic as others. These areas gentrified in the more generic sense (the dictionary definition of gentrification is the “socio-cultural displacement that results when wealthier people acquire property in low income and working class communities”); in southeast L.A. County, it was the case of more established, assimilated and smaller middle-class Latino and Asian families replacing first generation immigrants.
This pattern has been repeated all over California, from the San Francisco Peninsula, Oakland and the East Bay to San Diego and Orange County—as all these coastal communities have become more expensive and more exclusive, population growth slowed and stabilized, while people moved out to inland areas of the State. In L.A. County alone, there was a shift of one Congressional, one State Senate and one and a half Assembly districts to inland areas. Those districts ended up in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In short, these coastal regions stand to lose political clout because they have fewer members representing them in both capitols.
What does this all mean for partisan politics and urban development policy? It may not mean much—some are saying that most of the growth in the inland areas has been Latino, and that trends heavily Democratic. However, it could mean a different type of Democrat. While Democrats from highly urbanized coastal communities tended to be very progressive, pro-labor, liberal on social issues and strong environmentalists, Democrats from suburban inland communities are more middle-of-the road, more conservative on social issues and more focused on job creation and public education.
It’s possible to see shifting support on certain issues based on the diminished clout of inner-city representation and the growth of suburban and exurban legislators—a good example could be in the area of transportation, where mass transit, long the focus of urban politicians, continuously competes for funding against highways, which generally enjoy more support from the hinterlands. The same might be true of housing and redevelopment programs, reflecting the very different economies and built environments of cities and suburbs and their respective constituencies.
Or what about something like SB 375, which seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by encouraging the development of more compact communities. While it has enjoyed broad support from urban politicians, it has met resistance from suburban, exurban and rural leaders. Might a subtle shift in power from the coastal cities to the inland suburbs impact how well SB 375 is implemented and result in fewer state incentives for local smart growth policies?
Redistricting does its job if it genuinely reflects the socio-economic and demographic shifts reported in the Census. The renaissance of America’s big cities, characterized by gentrification of once depressed neighborhoods and an infusion of new wealth, vitality and social capital by what urbanist Richard Florida calls the “creative class” is mostly a good thing. But it also reflects a fundamental truth: middle- and working-class families have had to move on to more affordable pastures in the suburbs and exurbs. And with their kids, they’ll be taking their political clout with them.
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/10/10/larry-kaplan-redistricting-reflects-state-s-demographic-and-economic-new-realities
The mayor's new zoning guy gets the thumbs down
From The Planning Report: Insider's Guide to Planning and Infrastructure
July 28, 2010 - From the June 2010 issue
Who's Qualified to be the City of L.A.'s Custodian of the Built Environment?
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has nominated Michael LoGrande, presently Los Angeles' chief zoning administrator, to succeed the well-respected S. Gail Goldberg as the new Director of the L.A. Department of City Planning. This selection from within, only days after Ms. Goldberg's retirement, without the benefit of either a national or an inclusive vetting process, generated the following Op-Ed by Mark Winogrond, FAICP, Planmark Associates. Winogrond, who managed Mayor Villaraigosa's process for vetting and selecting Ms. Goldberg, questions here whether the nominee has the experience and the vision necessary to be the city's custodian of the built environment.
Michael LoGrande
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Press Release Statement
"Michael LoGrande has a deep knowledge of the City and its Planning Department that will enable him to immediately implement changes that will ensure the health of our City's growing communities. With his extensive experience and commitment to the City, he is someone who can hit the ground running and quickly implement change."
Op-Ed by Mark Winogrond, FAICP, Planmark Associates
I've known Michael for some years: when I was Mayor Villaraigosa's Interim Director of City Planning trying to restore hope in the Department and coordinating the recruitment for Con Howe's replacement, I was impressed by his can-do attitude. Somehow he seemed fresher than the stale negative, "Our first answer is NO." philosophy that permeated the Department of 2005.
I did not come to this naively. I had created and written San Francisco's ground-breaking zoning code and maps, led the West Hollywood team that took it from a run-down industrial pocket to "The Creative City", managed every concept and detail of the renaissance of Culver City, and helped numerous other cites and colleges get to a better future than they'd expected.
I put him in charge of the "Expedited Projects" unit, and was quickly disappointed. The skill of a good city planner – more importantly, of a good planning leader – is the ability to step away from a project and see how it fits into the context of the City's vision, the Department's goals, and the governing rules. At that time, I was disappointed to discover that Michael did not have that capacity. He had antennae very attuned, especially for his few years in public service, to the internal politics and pressure, and the importance of a particular project to the real power brokers.
I was disappointed to discover he was an excellent "I can get it done for you" lieutenant. Not what I'd call an independent thinker. So...to prepare for writing this, I did what I always do when I want to research an important (or potentially significant) planner: I asked Google. Nothing! No articles written, no speeches remembered, no earlier successes in either LA or other tough jurisdictions. No construction of a national network of colleagues from which to draw when LA needs ideas, creative solutions, free professional resources. One press release on his appointment last week. One critical blog back in 2007. Nothing! Nothing personal. Most troubling: nothing professional.
For better or worse, this has never happened before in the history of city planning in LA. Never has a Mayor let some guys who hire "expeditors" (a misnomer: nothing is expedited in a great city because of the very nature of government) to get their "entitlements" (a word LA power brokers invented when in fact they are "entitled" to nothing except the right to file an application) choose what is essentially an unknown person with no prior citymaking experience, a few years in the local town hall, and no reputation as a real leader, to be the Director of City Planning of the most fluid large city in the U.S.
Gail apparently had her detractors. But she did, despite the political and bureaucratic obstacles, the tough stuff she was asked to do: She removed the old upper managers who were from another era of citymaking; she formed bonds with other Departments; she instilled hope and professionalism in the Department; she de-politicized the approval process as best she could. Equally important, she quietly did as much to improve LA's national reputation in the development, real estate and citymaking community as anyone else in the Mayor's administration.
There are common threads to every American city which has seen great and grand improvements in the last 20 years: Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, especially Chicago, New York, Boston, Baltimore, and on and on. Their Mayors all put city-building first, often on a par with public safety. Many of those mayors went on to national office riding on the backs of the improvements in their city. Some like Mayor Daley, simply love the citymaking process so much, that they stay as long as they can, growing their city, park by park, flower bed by flower bed.
Louis Kahn said "A street is a room by agreement." Gail Goldberg understood this intuitively and fought to create planning-transportation partnerships for the benefit of we, the using citizens. So far nothing tells us whether Michael LoGrande understands that line, let alone agrees with it. Citymaking lives by the old scuba diver's maxim, "Plan your dive, then dive your plan." So far we have nothing that tells us whether Michael understands that maxim, let alone agrees with it.
Michael LoGrande has just become the parent of the only LA agency devoted to a better physical future. Nothing in his past has demonstrated that he is able to create teams who are willing to follow him into the tunnels of Hell in order come out the other side having shaped a better Los Angeles.
The decision has been made. Like with prior Supreme Court appointments, we can only pray that he surprises us and shocks us, with his independence, his leadership, his patient understanding of the complexities of making a better city in the midst of false crises and urgency.
Power corrupts. Absolutely. Many will be at his side, willing to help him negotiate away the hopes of Los Angeles for the expedited dollar. (As they always say, "Time is money." It would be difficult to find a less accurate statement when contemplating planning, and making great streets and great cities.) Fortunately, an equal number are willing to be at his side if he has the capacity to stand up as the independent advocate for fair balanced reasoned decisions.
"Michael LoGrande has a deep knowledge of the City and its Planning Department that will enable him to immediately implement changes that will ensure the health of our City's growing communities. With his extensive experience and commitment to the City, he is someone who can hit the ground running and quickly implement change."
Op-Ed by Mark Winogrond, FAICP, Planmark Associates
I've known Michael for some years: when I was Mayor Villaraigosa's Interim Director of City Planning trying to restore hope in the Department and coordinating the recruitment for Con Howe's replacement, I was impressed by his can-do attitude. Somehow he seemed fresher than the stale negative, "Our first answer is NO." philosophy that permeated the Department of 2005.
I did not come to this naively. I had created and written San Francisco's ground-breaking zoning code and maps, led the West Hollywood team that took it from a run-down industrial pocket to "The Creative City", managed every concept and detail of the renaissance of Culver City, and helped numerous other cites and colleges get to a better future than they'd expected.
I put him in charge of the "Expedited Projects" unit, and was quickly disappointed. The skill of a good city planner – more importantly, of a good planning leader – is the ability to step away from a project and see how it fits into the context of the City's vision, the Department's goals, and the governing rules. At that time, I was disappointed to discover that Michael did not have that capacity. He had antennae very attuned, especially for his few years in public service, to the internal politics and pressure, and the importance of a particular project to the real power brokers.
I was disappointed to discover he was an excellent "I can get it done for you" lieutenant. Not what I'd call an independent thinker. So...to prepare for writing this, I did what I always do when I want to research an important (or potentially significant) planner: I asked Google. Nothing! No articles written, no speeches remembered, no earlier successes in either LA or other tough jurisdictions. No construction of a national network of colleagues from which to draw when LA needs ideas, creative solutions, free professional resources. One press release on his appointment last week. One critical blog back in 2007. Nothing! Nothing personal. Most troubling: nothing professional.
For better or worse, this has never happened before in the history of city planning in LA. Never has a Mayor let some guys who hire "expeditors" (a misnomer: nothing is expedited in a great city because of the very nature of government) to get their "entitlements" (a word LA power brokers invented when in fact they are "entitled" to nothing except the right to file an application) choose what is essentially an unknown person with no prior citymaking experience, a few years in the local town hall, and no reputation as a real leader, to be the Director of City Planning of the most fluid large city in the U.S.
Gail apparently had her detractors. But she did, despite the political and bureaucratic obstacles, the tough stuff she was asked to do: She removed the old upper managers who were from another era of citymaking; she formed bonds with other Departments; she instilled hope and professionalism in the Department; she de-politicized the approval process as best she could. Equally important, she quietly did as much to improve LA's national reputation in the development, real estate and citymaking community as anyone else in the Mayor's administration.
There are common threads to every American city which has seen great and grand improvements in the last 20 years: Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, especially Chicago, New York, Boston, Baltimore, and on and on. Their Mayors all put city-building first, often on a par with public safety. Many of those mayors went on to national office riding on the backs of the improvements in their city. Some like Mayor Daley, simply love the citymaking process so much, that they stay as long as they can, growing their city, park by park, flower bed by flower bed.
Louis Kahn said "A street is a room by agreement." Gail Goldberg understood this intuitively and fought to create planning-transportation partnerships for the benefit of we, the using citizens. So far nothing tells us whether Michael LoGrande understands that line, let alone agrees with it. Citymaking lives by the old scuba diver's maxim, "Plan your dive, then dive your plan." So far we have nothing that tells us whether Michael understands that maxim, let alone agrees with it.
Michael LoGrande has just become the parent of the only LA agency devoted to a better physical future. Nothing in his past has demonstrated that he is able to create teams who are willing to follow him into the tunnels of Hell in order come out the other side having shaped a better Los Angeles.
The decision has been made. Like with prior Supreme Court appointments, we can only pray that he surprises us and shocks us, with his independence, his leadership, his patient understanding of the complexities of making a better city in the midst of false crises and urgency.
Power corrupts. Absolutely. Many will be at his side, willing to help him negotiate away the hopes of Los Angeles for the expedited dollar. (As they always say, "Time is money." It would be difficult to find a less accurate statement when contemplating planning, and making great streets and great cities.) Fortunately, an equal number are willing to be at his side if he has the capacity to stand up as the independent advocate for fair balanced reasoned decisions.
This is the guy
Who, I believe, we need to start writing and petitioning. (Well, one of them, anyway.)
The Vision of Michael LoGrande
Los Angeles Planning Director Gail Goldberg, who resigned July 16, had envisioned creating a citywide blueprint of best-case scenarios for L.A.'s future neighborhoods and business districts. Her surprise replacement, Chief Zoning Administrator Michael LoGrande, could not be more different.
As L.A. Weekly reported in its February 2008 story "Bitter Homes and Gardens," LoGrande worked as the city's key expediter — heading the unit that approved permits for apartment complexes, office towers, condos, minimansions and other projects sought by developers, homeowners and businesses who wanted exceptions from zoning, height, size and other land-use rules.
In all but a fraction of the cases — 10 percent — they got those exemptions.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's sudden promotion of LoGrande, without conducting a search among top metropolitan planning talent nationally, represents a sea change at the head of the powerful Department of City Planning — an agency that is often the focal point of community anger.
The decision has caused a furor of speculation among developers, within neighborhood councils, at City Hall and on political blogs.
LoGrande's 13-year history at City Hall includes little long-range planning work. He has few planning credentials. He studied political science, not planning, at California State University, Long Beach.
And, most importantly, it seems beyond unlikely that any major U.S. city would hire LoGrande, an obscure big-city zoning administrator, to take on the executive position of city planner, a job that requires an adept knowledge of commingling the art of design, politics, architecture and zoning to further a city's quality of life.
LoGrande went before the Los Angeles City Council for his confirmation August 4. The 15 council members are deeply averse to showing disagreement during votes, even on hotly debated citywide issues such as this. According to the Center for Governmental Studies, of 1,854 votes cast by the Los Angeles City Council during the first seven months of 2009, council members voted unanimously 99.993 percent of the time. City Council "mavericks" Greig Smith and Richard Alarcon voted no just five and four times, respectively, out of those 1,854 votes. As expected, the council did as it was told by Villaraigosa on Wednesday, voting 14-0 with Jan Perry absent.
Critics such as Dick Platkin, who retired from the planning department after 20 years and is now a consultant, suggest that Villaraigosa and his economic czar, Austin Beutner, chose LoGrande, with his "case-management" skills, as part of an economic strategy to encourage real estate speculation and construction in which the fast-tracking of construction permits and special zoning exemptions — known as "zoning variances" and "conditional-use permits," are key elements.
The upshot? Not quality of life but more revenue for city coffers.
Platkin told the Weekly last week that allowing lots of extra density — taller buildings, wider buildings, less open space — has become the default position at City Hall in order to appease L.A. developers who have "business models that don't allow them to build within existing zones and planning limitations." Simply, hard-fought zoning restrictions in many areas of Los Angeles do not allow enough density to satisfy the profit margins of some developers.
If land-use and zoning rules are more broadly interpreted under LoGrande, developers of the resulting apartments and office towers will pay higher permit fees and ultimately higher property taxes than if they built within the existing zoning rules. That, in turn, would help feed City Hall's thrashed budget, and fulfill Villaraigosa's frequent pledge to bring "elegant density" to Los Angeles.
Developers benefit.
The city budget benefits.
Do city residents benefit?
LoGrande, 39, a Long Beach resident, is seen by many as understanding codes and regulations and being in sync with Villaraigosa's development goals. He works long hours to move projects along.
But when LoGrande was asked about his experience in urban or community planning, he listed work from a decade ago — and then only as an assistant planner working to help update modest "community plans."
In 2008, the Weekly reported that LoGrande's division approved 90 percent of all requests by developers, builders and homeowners seeking to waive city zoning restrictions so they could build taller, wider or fatter commercial or retail buildings, homes, condos or apartment complexes.
This process of continually overriding zoning laws was decried by Gail Goldberg as having rendered L.A. planning efforts "disastrous" and handing developers the controls to "determine the value of the land" in Los Angeles.
Under Villaraigosa, Goldberg proved unable to change that basic calculus.
In recent days, the Weekly reviewed more than 100 applications for variances and other exceptions sought at LoGrande's zoning division by those hoping to build multi-use commercial complexes, condos, small residential projects and other undertakings in 2009.
All but a handful of the 100 exceptions sought were approved, the city zoning for the area overridden.
Officials at the "expedited-processing section" say their approach has helped to fast-track and construct massive apartment complexes and office developments and more than 15,000 housing units since 2004. But as the Weekly reported in its January 2009 story "L.A.'s Hidden Housing Disaster," the city allowed the destruction or conversion of 13,713 affordable and rent-controlled units during the rush to erect these 15,000 mostly luxury units.
LoGrande told the Weekly that the mayor and Beutner privately promised him that long-range planning will be a priority. "If people give me a chance, they'll see there is more to me than my past job," he says.
LoGrande says he will quickly fill a vacant deputy director post in charge of long-range planning, and will find funds to pay for plan updates and long-range projects.
He says that his division approves so many exceptions because of old, "suburban"-style land-use plans and outdated codes that make it hard to proceed even when projects are popular in the community.
The Weekly interviewed more than a dozen current and former planners, city officials, developers and community members who have worked with LoGrande, in an effort to gain a more complete picture of an administrator better known within mayoral and City Council political circles. LoGrande inspires sharp disagreement among those who have dealt with him.
Diana Plotkin, president of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association, calls her dealings with LoGrande "very, very dismal; I don't think he knows what he's doing — even as head of [Office of] Zoning Administration."
Three years ago, she says, her request to put restaurant parking–lot leases into a database so zoning officials could easily determine which restaurants weren't providing enough parking proved too much for LoGrande to handle.
"He totally ignored us up until a couple of weeks go" — in fact, just before Villaraigosa nominated him to become the top planner, Plotkin says. "If that's the way planning in the city of Los Angeles is going to be done, it will be destroyed forever."
But Lisa Sarkin, of the Studio City Neighborhood Council land-use committee, has the opposite view. The real estate agent and accountant found LoGrande committed to long-range planning, and having a good grasp of issues. "He understands that all the neighborhoods are different and have different necessities," Sarkin says. "He has a good grasp of real planning, and supports what Gail (Goldberg) was doing."
Dan Rosenfeld, who dealt with LoGrande when Rosenfeld was a developer and is now on Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas' staff, says LoGrande was fair and "wasn't a pushover."
However, Mark Winogrond, Culver City's former chief administrative officer, who was the interim planning director before Goldberg, caused a war of words several days ago with his published remarks in The Planning Report newsletter. Never before has such an "unknown person with no prior citymaking experience, a few years in the local town hall, and no reputation as a real leader," been chosen as director of planning for the "most fluid large city in the U.S.," Winogrond wrote.
Goldberg, as well as several senior planners who have left, and former City Planning Commission President Jane Usher, were all seen by some in the Villaraigosa administration as roadblocks because they sought to create a planning framework that developers would have to live within — one that emphasized a higher quality of life for L.A.
James O'Sullivan is president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and part of a lawsuit targeting the city's planning practices, including City Hall's suspension of an annual report on growth and infrastructure. He calls Villaraigosa the "puppet master" of development and citywide planning. "They will block anything that we consider, in the communities, to be good planning."
The Vision of Michael LoGrande
A perpetually unplanned L.A. must survive life under a developer's expediter
By Beth Barrett
published: August 05, 2010
PHOTO BY GARY LEONARD
Villaraigosa stands behind Michael LoGrande.
As L.A. Weekly reported in its February 2008 story "Bitter Homes and Gardens," LoGrande worked as the city's key expediter — heading the unit that approved permits for apartment complexes, office towers, condos, minimansions and other projects sought by developers, homeowners and businesses who wanted exceptions from zoning, height, size and other land-use rules.
In all but a fraction of the cases — 10 percent — they got those exemptions.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's sudden promotion of LoGrande, without conducting a search among top metropolitan planning talent nationally, represents a sea change at the head of the powerful Department of City Planning — an agency that is often the focal point of community anger.
The decision has caused a furor of speculation among developers, within neighborhood councils, at City Hall and on political blogs.
LoGrande's 13-year history at City Hall includes little long-range planning work. He has few planning credentials. He studied political science, not planning, at California State University, Long Beach.
And, most importantly, it seems beyond unlikely that any major U.S. city would hire LoGrande, an obscure big-city zoning administrator, to take on the executive position of city planner, a job that requires an adept knowledge of commingling the art of design, politics, architecture and zoning to further a city's quality of life.
LoGrande went before the Los Angeles City Council for his confirmation August 4. The 15 council members are deeply averse to showing disagreement during votes, even on hotly debated citywide issues such as this. According to the Center for Governmental Studies, of 1,854 votes cast by the Los Angeles City Council during the first seven months of 2009, council members voted unanimously 99.993 percent of the time. City Council "mavericks" Greig Smith and Richard Alarcon voted no just five and four times, respectively, out of those 1,854 votes. As expected, the council did as it was told by Villaraigosa on Wednesday, voting 14-0 with Jan Perry absent.
Critics such as Dick Platkin, who retired from the planning department after 20 years and is now a consultant, suggest that Villaraigosa and his economic czar, Austin Beutner, chose LoGrande, with his "case-management" skills, as part of an economic strategy to encourage real estate speculation and construction in which the fast-tracking of construction permits and special zoning exemptions — known as "zoning variances" and "conditional-use permits," are key elements.
The upshot? Not quality of life but more revenue for city coffers.
Platkin told the Weekly last week that allowing lots of extra density — taller buildings, wider buildings, less open space — has become the default position at City Hall in order to appease L.A. developers who have "business models that don't allow them to build within existing zones and planning limitations." Simply, hard-fought zoning restrictions in many areas of Los Angeles do not allow enough density to satisfy the profit margins of some developers.
If land-use and zoning rules are more broadly interpreted under LoGrande, developers of the resulting apartments and office towers will pay higher permit fees and ultimately higher property taxes than if they built within the existing zoning rules. That, in turn, would help feed City Hall's thrashed budget, and fulfill Villaraigosa's frequent pledge to bring "elegant density" to Los Angeles.
Developers benefit.
The city budget benefits.
Do city residents benefit?
LoGrande, 39, a Long Beach resident, is seen by many as understanding codes and regulations and being in sync with Villaraigosa's development goals. He works long hours to move projects along.
But when LoGrande was asked about his experience in urban or community planning, he listed work from a decade ago — and then only as an assistant planner working to help update modest "community plans."
In 2008, the Weekly reported that LoGrande's division approved 90 percent of all requests by developers, builders and homeowners seeking to waive city zoning restrictions so they could build taller, wider or fatter commercial or retail buildings, homes, condos or apartment complexes.
This process of continually overriding zoning laws was decried by Gail Goldberg as having rendered L.A. planning efforts "disastrous" and handing developers the controls to "determine the value of the land" in Los Angeles.
Under Villaraigosa, Goldberg proved unable to change that basic calculus.
In recent days, the Weekly reviewed more than 100 applications for variances and other exceptions sought at LoGrande's zoning division by those hoping to build multi-use commercial complexes, condos, small residential projects and other undertakings in 2009.
All but a handful of the 100 exceptions sought were approved, the city zoning for the area overridden.
Officials at the "expedited-processing section" say their approach has helped to fast-track and construct massive apartment complexes and office developments and more than 15,000 housing units since 2004. But as the Weekly reported in its January 2009 story "L.A.'s Hidden Housing Disaster," the city allowed the destruction or conversion of 13,713 affordable and rent-controlled units during the rush to erect these 15,000 mostly luxury units.
LoGrande told the Weekly that the mayor and Beutner privately promised him that long-range planning will be a priority. "If people give me a chance, they'll see there is more to me than my past job," he says.
LoGrande says he will quickly fill a vacant deputy director post in charge of long-range planning, and will find funds to pay for plan updates and long-range projects.
He says that his division approves so many exceptions because of old, "suburban"-style land-use plans and outdated codes that make it hard to proceed even when projects are popular in the community.
The Weekly interviewed more than a dozen current and former planners, city officials, developers and community members who have worked with LoGrande, in an effort to gain a more complete picture of an administrator better known within mayoral and City Council political circles. LoGrande inspires sharp disagreement among those who have dealt with him.
Diana Plotkin, president of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association, calls her dealings with LoGrande "very, very dismal; I don't think he knows what he's doing — even as head of [Office of] Zoning Administration."
Three years ago, she says, her request to put restaurant parking–lot leases into a database so zoning officials could easily determine which restaurants weren't providing enough parking proved too much for LoGrande to handle.
"He totally ignored us up until a couple of weeks go" — in fact, just before Villaraigosa nominated him to become the top planner, Plotkin says. "If that's the way planning in the city of Los Angeles is going to be done, it will be destroyed forever."
But Lisa Sarkin, of the Studio City Neighborhood Council land-use committee, has the opposite view. The real estate agent and accountant found LoGrande committed to long-range planning, and having a good grasp of issues. "He understands that all the neighborhoods are different and have different necessities," Sarkin says. "He has a good grasp of real planning, and supports what Gail (Goldberg) was doing."
Dan Rosenfeld, who dealt with LoGrande when Rosenfeld was a developer and is now on Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas' staff, says LoGrande was fair and "wasn't a pushover."
However, Mark Winogrond, Culver City's former chief administrative officer, who was the interim planning director before Goldberg, caused a war of words several days ago with his published remarks in The Planning Report newsletter. Never before has such an "unknown person with no prior citymaking experience, a few years in the local town hall, and no reputation as a real leader," been chosen as director of planning for the "most fluid large city in the U.S.," Winogrond wrote.
Goldberg, as well as several senior planners who have left, and former City Planning Commission President Jane Usher, were all seen by some in the Villaraigosa administration as roadblocks because they sought to create a planning framework that developers would have to live within — one that emphasized a higher quality of life for L.A.
James O'Sullivan is president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and part of a lawsuit targeting the city's planning practices, including City Hall's suspension of an annual report on growth and infrastructure. He calls Villaraigosa the "puppet master" of development and citywide planning. "They will block anything that we consider, in the communities, to be good planning."
The Baseline Hillside Ordinance: the good, the bad and the incomprehensible
The Baseline Hillside Ordinance was signed into law in March 2011 and is the third part of a three-part endeavor by the city to stem the mansionization of Los Angeles. (See my earlier posts for details about this effort, which of course doesn't protect us over here in R2-1VL.) The ordinance is extremely difficult to understand and it's impossible for mere mortals to figure out how big a hillside house protected by the ordinance can be. The only way builders can determine the size of the house they want to build is to hire an engineer or a surveyor to study the land for what's called a Slope Band Analysis. By contrast, houses in our zone, R2 - 1VL, just need to consult the municipal manual to learn the maximum allowable height (45 feet) and literal house-size restrictions (3:1 floor area ratio). Simple stuff. So, why the lack of transparency in the Ordinance? Here's what the American Institute of Architects (AIA) said about the Ordinance when it was in the proposal stage:
These recommendations were ignored and the bottom line is that an average person cannot understand how big a house he/she can build - or that can be built next to his or her home. Again, why the lack of transparency? The AIA's full recommendations are below:
Grading – Slope Band Analysis Method
The working group questions whether the proposed and highly complex Slope Band analysis method will lead to significantly better results than simpler methods of determining maximum Residential Floor Area would.
It is further the working group's opinion that there may be significant conflicts between the proposed method of determining maximum Residential Floor Area and proposed grading limitations, in particular soil import and soil export limitations. Especially on larger sites, proposed grading limits might override the elaborate Slope Band analysis method. In this case the Slope Band analysis method would be redundant. The working group believes the effects and the interaction of the proposed ordinance provisions have not adequately been demonstrated.
These recommendations were ignored and the bottom line is that an average person cannot understand how big a house he/she can build - or that can be built next to his or her home. Again, why the lack of transparency? The AIA's full recommendations are below:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
AIA|LA Baseline Hillside Ordinance Working Group Recommendations
April 28, 2010
Honorable William Roschen
and Members of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission
Department of City Planning
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Mail Stop 395
Los Angeles, California 90012-2601
Re: Baseline Hillside Ordinance (CPC-2010-581-CA)
Dear Commission President Roschen and Members of the Commission:
AIA|LA Baseline Hillside Ordinance Working Group Recommendations
An informal working group of AIA|LA has reviewed the proposed Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO). The working group substantially agrees with the goals and objectives of the proposed ordinance. In particular the working group supports the following provisions:
• Reducing allowed Residential Floor Areas in hillside areas by lowering Floor Area Ratios (FAR).
• Providing Residential Floor Area incentives reducing the visual impact of new development in hillside areas by encouraging step-backs at front and side yards, reduced building heights, multiple structures, or reduced grading.
• Establishing new hillside height regulations encouraging building heights to follow the existing hillside topography.
• Limiting excessive grading of hillsides.
In the opinion of the working group these tools can help establish better development standards for hillside development. At the same time the working group sees the sheer number of provisions, the complexity of individual provisions, and the extent of proposed Zoning Administrator actions as burdensome to the development of hillside homes.
Therefore, the AIA|LA working group proposes that the effects of this proposed Ordinance be studied and tested using specific, representative case sites.
Wherever feasible simplified approaches should be incorporated into the ordinance to improve the overall workability, including the following specific considerations:
Grading – Slope Band Analysis Method
The working group questions whether the proposed and highly complex Slope Band analysis method will lead to significantly better results than simpler methods of determining maximum Residential Floor Area would.
It is further the working group's opinion that there may be significant conflicts between the proposed method of determining maximum Residential Floor Area and proposed grading limitations, in particular soil import and soil export limitations. Especially on larger sites, proposed grading limits might override the elaborate Slope Band analysis method. In this case the Slope Band analysis method would be redundant. The working group believes the effects and the interaction of the proposed ordinance provisions have not adequately been demonstrated.
Residential Floor Area
The proposed Slope Band analysis method for determining maximum Residential Floor Areas utilizes a complex method of determining and categorizing site slopes, based on a highly detailed topographical survey and advanced computer-aided analysis techniques.
The working group recommends studying the following alternatives:
As lot sizes in hillside areas vary considerably within zoning designations, base maximum FAR on the actual lot size rather than zoning designations. FARs should diminish for larger lots.
For instance, in lieu of the proposed Slope Band analysis method, maintain the existing method of determining lot slope per LAMC 12.21 A.17 (c). Establish more restrictive FAR for sites with "steep slopes," currently defined to be sloping at greater than 66%. For example a 5,000 square foot lot FAR = 0.50; a "steep slope" 5,000 square foot lot FAR = 0.40 (these figures equate to the proposed BMO's R1 FAR designations). Rationale: The additional value of the complex Slope Band analysis method has not been demonstrated. The average slope method is a simple and widely used tool. And, the reduction of slope types, from six to two, simplifies the process of determining site development potential.
Requiring two-foot topographical surveys instead of one-foot surveys increases cost/complexity and does not add value. Rationale: A one-foot topographical survey is more costly than a two-foot survey. The additional topographical information is questionable and may result in overly complex surveys.
Removing the proposed Floor Area Bonus for projects utilizing U.S. Green Building Council's LEED system (Green Building Option #1). Rationale: This incentive promotes the use of a proprietary rating system and is redundant with Green Building Option #2. The use of green building techniques does not address the issue of neighborhood character in hillside areas and should be more specifically addressed in other portions of the City of L.A. Municipal Code or Building Code.
Height
The proposed Maximum Envelope Height method establishes height limits that follow the existing hillside topography. The working group welcomes this approach as this method will encourage buildings with reduced bulk and more in character with hillside topography.
At the same time the working group finds that the proposed Maximum Envelope Height needs to be reconciled with existing City of Los Angeles Building Code height definitions ('grade plane' as defined in LABC 502.1) and recommends that:
Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) study the City Planning proposed "Parallel Plane Method for Height Measurement", test the proposal relative to 'Grade Plane Method for Height Measurement" found in the L.A. Building Code and issue a preliminary interpretation "Information Bulletin" for review prior to the passage of the Baseline Hillside Ordinance.
Rationale: It is essential that there be agreement between LADBS and City Planning on the interpretation of height limits on hillsides to avoid public confusion and ensure that the goals and objectives of this ordinance are achieved in practice and this ordinance provision function as intended.
Grading
The proposed ordinance restricts grading quantities for cut and fill and for import and export of soil from the site. The amount of soil import is limited to 500 cubic yards and the amount of soil export is limited to 1,000 cubic yards regardless of lot size; for sites on Substandard Hillside Limited Streets soil import and export quantities are even more restrictive.
The working group recommends the following:
Study whether the proposed grading limits conflict with the proposed Residential Floor Area method mentioned above. Rationale: The strict limitations of soil imports and exports may preclude the development of the maximum allowed Residential Floor Area on a given site. If this is the case, provisions of this ordinance would be in conflict, thereby further burdening the permitting process of hillside homes.
The working group would further like to reaffirm the recommendation to require the involvement of an architect in hillside development of new homes and additions exceeding 500 square feet in size. Given the sensitivity of development on hillside including considerations such as community character, complexity of hillside regulations, green building goals, code requirements, and the sensitively of siting buildings on slopes a licensed professional should be involved.
Other points:
• We believe a record search and assessment of recorded Phase I for all properties within 1,000 feet of the site is excessive and recommend that any Phase I requirement be related to size of development and/or scope of grading.
• The existing code limits on retaining walls should be analyzed as it relates to this ordinance (retaining wall limits may be incentivizing more bulky buildings and may be in conflict with the goals of this ordinance).
• We believe the current substandard street exemption for additions under 750 sf, should remain and these projects should not have to apply for a variance.
• We believe additions under 750 sf should be allowed (as under current code, 'grandfathered rights') without also requiring 2 covered parking spaces as this would defeat the purpose of the ordinance, which is to promote a better scale of buildings and limit grading.
The AIA/LA working group is committed to working with both the Planning Commission and the Department of City Planning to address these concerns and crafting a workable ordinance.
We're here to help provide leadership in improving the build environment.
For more information, please contact:
Will Wright
Director, Government & Public Affairs
AIA Los Angeles
213.639.0777
will@aialosangeles.org
Monday, January 16, 2012
We are not alone
Subject: Join People for Liveable Communities to SAVE LOS ANGELES
Dear Community Leader,The City of Los Angeles is currently updating the Community Plans that control land use and zoning and set the vision for the future of Los Angeles. Although community planning can be a dry subject and is often ignored because it is so technical, it has an enormous effect on all of our lives for good or for ill. The type of development allowed under the Community Plans could reduce property values, increase noise and traffic congestion, or change the character of the City. The City Planning Department recently presented the draft Hollywood Community Plan to the public.Nearly every neighborhood association and neighborhood council in Hollywood became alarmed at the provisions in this Plan and immediately took official positions in opposition to the Plan. In only four weeks and with only minor changes the Zoning Administrator, the Central Area Planning Commission, and the City Planning Commission approved the Plan.How does this affect you? The Hollywood Community Plan is just the first of 35 Community Plans that cover every part of Los Angeles. It is the template for all the plans that follow. Whatever is included in the Hollywood Community Plan will also be in the community plan in your part of Los Angeles. This makes it your fight, too.The objectionable part of the Hollywood Community Plan is the proposed massive increase in development without any regard for the inadequate infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, public services) to support that amount of development even though population has steadily decreased over the past 20 years and the building maximums under current zoning rules have not been reached. The Plan is a gift to land developers who have contributed to the campaigns of the Mayor and Council members.A city is a place where people live, and we, the residents, must have community plans that reflect our needs and desires. We are the ones who elect the Mayor and City Council, and they must be made to heed our voices. That is why community leaders in Hollywood have organized to form a group dedicated to creating a Community Plan that reflects the interests of the residents. However, since the community plans will be created for the entire city, residents all across the city will have to be part of this coalition if we are to succeed.Leaders of neighborhood associations and neighborhood councils in the Hollywood area have agreed to form a coalition; People For Liveable Communities. We have already begun holding meetings to chart our future course. We are asking you to join our coalition.The community plans cover the entire city, and there is no place to hide. No one can rely on a promise to leave your neighborhood alone if you support a community plan. This is just hoping that the planning alligator will eat you last. To succeed in preserving the quality of life and the character of Los Angeles, we must all stand as one.George Abrahams, Outreach CoordinatorPeople for Liveable Communities(We are in the process of building our website and will send that URL when launches) In the meantime, please send your comments to BeachwoodCanyon@sbcglobal.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)