Hollywood United Neighborhood Council..(HUNC)

PLUM Committee Meeting

Thurs. Jan. 7, 2021..6:30PM

Will be discussing TOCs and the TOC law suit ..

Agenda Item #5

http://hollywoodunitednc.org/2021/01/04/plum-1-21/

Since everything around WH HPOZ, all the 'HPOZ Adjacent" streets are now targeted 'TOC Development Opportunity' areas, Whitley Ave., etc., this meeting/discussion might be of interest.

The TOC controversy is about the difference between the 'TOC Guidelines' ('gifts' the city is giving to TOC developers, making areas like ours even more attractive to developers) and what Measure JJJ Voters actually voted for..

'Gifts' such as  the (dangerously irresponsible) 70 or 75% density bonus the city gave the 1920 Whitley Ave. TOC in our 'Very High Fire Severity Zone' area where only 30-35% is allowed for PUBLIC SAFETY..

This is way outside the scope of what Measure JJJ Voters voted for..

Because of these 'gifts' the city is giving TOC developers, our area is being advertised as a "TOC Development Opportunity"...very attractive to TOC developers, and we will be seeing more and more of the buildings on the Whitley Heights  'HPOZ Adjacent Streets'... demoed for oversized, no design, less parking required (there is no Neighborhood Council or community input on TOCs) TOCs.... and some buildings being lost here are 1920's, 1930's, and older, Hollywood Heritage identified  'Historic Contributor' buildings, and wiping out an existing RSO and Affordable neighborhood..

If you attended the Councilmember Ryu Whitley Heights Town Hall, he discussed TOCs and he was appalled at the dangerous TOC 70-75% density bonus  the city gave the 1920 Whitley Ave. TOC, not allowed  in our 'Very High Fire Severity Zone', and promised "I'll fight for you"  and never let that happen again.

He also expressed support for the TOC law suit..Measure JJJ voters never voted for those dangerous density bonuses..they're given by The City.

The new CD4 office has been informed about this urgent public safety matter since more TOCs are proposed for the area, with more dangerous density bonuses, placing the community at risk..

The  city also ignored  another dangerous prohibitive zone that 1920 Whitley Ave. is in.... the Alquist Priolo Zone (Active EQ fault zone)

The TOC lawsuit challenges the 'TOC Guidelines' and all that the city is giving TOC developers that are way beyond the scope of  Measure JJJ and not what JJJ voters voted for, and many of these 'gifts' are placing vulnerable communities at risk..

The lawsuit explains the 'legal' issues.

Below are links to information about TOCs, the Lawsuit, Measure JJJ, and Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council PLUM Committee analysis of it.

The upcoming Thursday night  HUNC PLUM Committee meeting is another opportunity to learn more about the legality or illegality of the City's 'TOC Guidelines' and TOC development projects.

TOC projects provide a pittance of affordable housing, but in this older, RSO/affordable, TOC targeted area, featured in a CurbedLA article, and specifically the nearly 100 year old original Whitley Ave RSO building to be demoed for a TOC, and other older affordable buildings threatened with destruction for more dangerous 70% density bonus TOCs, the question is..is this a fair trade in this area?

.

TOC Guidelines

https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/39fae0ef-f41d-49cc-9bd2-4e7a2eb528dd/TOCGuidelines.pdf

Text of Measure JJJ and Lawsuit Overview

https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles,_California,_Affordable_Housing_and_Labor_Standards_Initiative,_Measure_JJJ_(November_2016)

TOC lawsuit..

http://fixthecity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandate_10400SMB.pdf

TOC projects....from Hollywood Studio District NC PLUM Committee

On November 8, 2016, voters in the City of Los Angeles approved a ballot measure known as Measure JJJ. The title of this measure was "Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Related to City Planning."  The measure was further titled “The Build Better LA Initiative." 

As the ballot titles reveal, Measure JJJ was drafted to promote two purposes:  1) an increase in the amount of affordable housing constructed in the City,   2) the creation of local jobs paying adequate wages. The ballot question for Measure JJJ read:

"Shall an ordinance: I) requiring that certain residential development projects provide for affordable housing and comply with prevailing wage, local hiring and other labor standards; 2) requiring the City to assess the impacts of community plan changes on affordable housing and local jobs; 3) creating an affordable housing incentive program for developments near major transit stops; and 4) making other changes; be adopted?" The City's Chief Legislative Analysis prepared an Impartial Analysis of Measure JJJ, which provided that Measure JJJ       "will amend City law to add affordable housing standards and training, local hiring, and specific wage requirements for certain residential projects or more units seeking General Plan amendments or zoning changes." The Impartial Analysis explained.. "This measure also creates an affordable housing incentive program with increased density and reduced parking requirements in areas within a one-half mile radius around a major transit stop." On September 27, 2017 the City Planning Commission released the draft TOC Guidelines "developed pursuant to Measure JJJ." These TOC Guidelines were clarified and updated on February 25, 2018. The TOC Guidelines contend that they.... "provide the eligibility standards, incentives, and other necessary components of the TOC Program consistent with LAMC §12.22 A.31 [enacted by Measure JJJ]." Yet the Commission and City far exceeded the authority granted it by the voters as well as its own laws and state laws. TOC "incentives" far exceed those authorized by the voters enacting Measure JJJ, while failing to provide for well-paid jobs adhering to the prevailing wage in Los Angeles. These incentives constitute vast departures from numerous existing codified ordinances yet were never approved legislatively: not by the voters, nor by the City Council.  The reliance upon these improper guidelines by the City and the City Planning Commission constitutes an improper policy and practice of ignoring the voters' mandate in Measure JJJ and disregarding the proper legislative procedures for amending the General Plan and zoning ordinances. In fact, the TOC Guidelines depart significantly from the parameters and requirements of Measure JJJ in numerous respects. While Measure JJJ provides that the TOC Guidelines may allow a different level of' density increase based upon a property's base zone and density, the TOC Guidelines utilize a system of Tiers based upon distance from a Major Transit Stop to award differing levels of density increase, regardless of a property's base zone or density. Measure JJJ merely provides that the TOC Guidelines contain incentives "consistent with the following": a residential density increase, adjustments to minimum square feet per dwelling unit, floor area ratio, or both, as well as parking reductions. The 'I'OC Guidelines, however, include additional, non-voter approved incentives for reductions in required yards and setback, open space, lot width, increases in maximum lot coverage, height, transitional height requirements, and FAR starting levels irrespective of the underlying zoning.  Each of these "additional" incentives alters otherwise applicable limitations in the municipal code without complying with the procedural requirements for zone changes, height district amendments and general plan amendments or variances, all of which provide due process and full transparency. Nowhere does Measure JJJ authorize incentives for increased height, reduced open space, or reduced side or front yards. Nor were the voters informed of such incentives by Measure JJJ.  Section 5 of Measure JJJ provides that in the case of projects with 10 or more residential dwelling units, in order to be eligible for "a discretionary General Plan amendment... or any zone change or height-district change that results in increased allowable residential floor area, density or height, or allows a residential use where previously not allowed," the project must comply with various affordable housing requirements (including on - or off - site), and shall comply with the job standards in subdivision (i). 'The job standards require that all work be performed by licensed contractors, that at least 30 percent of the workforce are residents of the City, that 10 percent of the workforce consists of "transitional” workers living within a 5-mile radius of the project, and that the workers are paid the standard prevailing wages in the project area.   Yet despite TOC projects now comprising the overwhelming majority of discretionary building applications, there have been almost no labor standard projects approved under Measure JJJ. Voters adopted Measure JJJ being told that the measure would require projects seeking zone changes or height district changes to abide by labor standards and affordable housing requirements. What voters got instead are guidelines that provide wholesale elimination of established zoning laws for a pittance of affordable housing while destroying whole swaths of Rent Stabilized housing.  The TOC Guidelines were never adopted in a legislative process or presented to the voters, and do not require the "good jobs" that Measure JJJ promised. Projects that would have been required to meet labor standards under Section 5 avoid those standards because the TOC Guidelines claim to obviate the need for zone changes and height district changes in the many areas of the city that are within a half mile from a bus line or transit stop. The TOC Guidelines are quite simply a scam.  They overturn a significant number of municipal code provisions regarding height and other planning standards, yet they were never adopted by the legislative body legally authorized to make those changes. Nor were the TOC Guidelines adopted by the voters. Instead, the TOC Guidelines significantly depart from the land use planning framework approved by the voters and overturn the duly-adopted ordinances passed by the Los Angeles City Council. Nor were the TOC "Tiers" allowing increased density within proximity to transit authorized by Measure JJJ. The Tiers function as newly created zones, which were not adopted by ordinance nor approved by voters.  Only the voters can amend Measure JJJ; the Council may only make non-substantive amendments to the measure's provisions. The TOC Guidelines are so sweeping they effectively constitute a general plan amendment, vastly increasing permissible density and height for certain residential projects. Yet the TOC Guidelines were not adopted consistent with the process for a general plan amendment. Further, by impermissibly including height and other incentives not provided for in Measure JJJ, the city has effectively rendered moot the general plan amendment process, thereby creating inconsistencies within the general plan in violation of state law.  The TOC Guidelines undermine one of the two fundamental premises of Measure JJJ: the requirement of projects to meet labor standard requirements to receive incentives under the TOC Guidelines. Absent this requirement, the fundamental promise of Measure JJJ to provide "good jobs" is undermined. While Measure JJJ Section 5 sets forth an elaborate set of requirements for projects seeking general plan amendments, zone changes, or height district changes, and requires adherence to labor standards in order to receive these entitlements, projects receiving incentives under the improperly approved TOC Guidelines no longer need zone changes or height district changes, and so do not comply with the labor standards or provide the public with notice and public hearings to make these massive changes. The TOC guidelines as written and illegally "approved" is nothing short of an attempt to end-run the City Charter and the will of the voters. In adopting the TOC Guidelines in conflict with JJJ, the Planning Department and City Planning Commission abused their discretion, and promulgated TOC Guidelines in an arbitrary and capricious manner that is not consistent with the requirements of Measure JJJ nor consistent with the requirements of state and local law for the adoption of zoning ordinances and maintaining general plan consistency.  The TOC Guidelines need to be recognized as illegal.  Attempts to parlay minor aspects of the Guidelines merely legitimize what is a fundamentally corrupt and illegal process.