|
|
CHAPTER III -
|
BACKGROUND
|
|
|
|
Shortcuts to Major Topics:
ENDNOTES
|
|
|
CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND
|
|
The first City of Los Angeles Housing Element was prepared in 1969, and a
Housing Background Report was prepared in 1971. After the Council on
Intergovernmental Relations adopted state guidelines in September 1973,
these early housing studies were broadened and strengthened. The
completed Housing Element was then adopted by the City Council in 1976.
Subsequent updates were approved in 1979, 1984, 1986, and 1993.
|
|
CITY PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION
|
|
The City of Los Angeles encompasses an area of about 465 square miles,
which includes approximately 150 square miles of hills and mountains and
50 square miles of parklands. The City is bordered by the Santa Susana
Mountains on the north, developed communities on the east, the Santa
Monica Mountains on the northwest, and Santa Monica Bay and the Pacific
Ocean on the south and west. The City is organized geographically into
35 community plan areas, and 11 subregions (See
Exhibit 1).
|
|
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
|
|
State law requires local governments to work not only with citizens, but
also with other governmental agencies and public utility companies in
preparing and implementing their General Plans (Government Code Sections
65304 and 65400(d)). Intergovernmental coordination involves more than a
formal exchange of information and plans. In the planning process,
legitimate conflicts arise between agencies with different
responsibilities, constituencies, and viewpoints. To resolve these
conflicts, cities and counties should vigorously pursue a full
understanding of the other agencies' positions and be prepared to
negotiate on the issues at conflict.
|
State law requires local governments to include the following groups in
the preparation of the housing element through public hearings or any
other means the city or county deems appropriate.
- - citizens
- - public agencies
- - public utility companies
- - civic, educational, and other community groups
(Government Code Sections 65351 and 65400(d)).
|
|
HISTORIC CONTEXT
|
|
Population
|
|
In 1990, there were 3,485,398 persons residing in the City of Los Angeles,
the second largest city in the nation and the most populous city in the
State. This is a 15% increase over the 1980 census population of
2,966,850. The population projection for the year 2000 is 3,852,993. It
has been projected that the population of the City will increase to
4,306,655(1) by 2010, a 20% increase over
the 1994 population. Population growth occurs from a combination of
natural increase (births less deaths), domestic in-migration, and foreign
immigration. Those who move to Los Angeles from within the country are
referred to as in-migrants. Annual population growth from 1990-1999 is
shown as follows:(2)
|
|
1990 - 3,485,398
1991 - 3,530,385
1992 - 3,462,403
1993 - 3,467,785
1994 - 3,451,961
1995 - 3,542,411
1996 - 3,580,800
1997 - 3,672,950
1998 - 3,765,110
1999 - 3,777,900
|
Exhibit 1
GEOGRAPHICAL SUBREGIONS with PLANNING AREAS
|
|
The total number of dwelling units in the City in 1994 was 1,322,875,
providing an average of 2.83 persons per dwelling unit. See
Exhibit 2 for number of households and average
household size by subregion.(3)
|
|
According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
in-migration accounted for 50% of the region's growth during the 1970-94
period. In-migrants are well represented in the professional technical
employment category and tend to be well educated. In contrast, 91%
immigrants have no formal education and tend to live in large households
where they pay more than 30% of their income for rent. Immigrants
represent 7% of the population growth of the region.
(4)
|
|
In 1995 for the first time in recent history, the City had lost
approximately 1% of its population (91,332 persons) during the period
from 1990 to 1994. (See Exhibit 3)
(5) This out-migration was primarily due to the recession
and the Northridge earthquake in January 1994.
|
|
Consequently, during the period 1990-94, the City lost population in 24
communities, and, in that same period, gained in population in 10
communities, while one remained stable. The greatest population loss
occurred in West Adams and Hollywood. Population gains were made in
Central City, North Hollywood, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Sun Valley,
Palms Mar Vista, Venice, Westchester, Brentwood, and Bel Air.
(6) As of 1993, the most populous
community plan areas were: Wilshire (270,763), South Central Los Angeles
(253,876), Southeast Los Angeles (236,480) and Northeast Los Angeles
(238,602). (Chapter III - Projections: Population, Employment and Housing
discusses population issues)
|
|
Historically, development boomed in vast areas of vacant land and
underdeveloped areas of the City to accommodate population growth.
However, these large areas of developable vacant land no longer exist. In
addition, the City has not recently annexed large areas. In the 1980's,
land area in the City increased by only 1.6 square miles. The City is
now almost fully developed and innovative approaches must be used to
accommodate the projected population growth. The Framework Element
targets growth to those districts, centers, and boulevards where new
development is encouraged and within which incentives are provided by the
policies of the Framework Element.
|
|
Ethnic diversity in the City increased between 1980 and 1995, as
reflected in the varying proportional ethnic representation (See
Exhibit 4). Asians have increased from 6.6% to 9.2%
(See Exhibit 5), the percentage of Hispanics has
increased from 27.5% to 40.2% of the population (See
Exhibit 7), while blacks decreased as a percentage of the population
from 17% to 13% (See Exhibit 6), and Native Americans
from 0.6% to 0.3%. The Caucasian representation in the population has
declined from 48.3% to 37.3% (See Exhibit 8).
(7)
|
|
Certain groups tend to predominate in certain communities. For example,
Caucasians are heavily concentrated in West San Fernando Valley and
Westside communities. Blacks are concentrated in West Adams, South
Central, and Southeast Los Angeles. Hispanics are concentrated in Central
City, Boyle Heights, Southeast, South Central, Northeast Los Angeles,
Arleta - Pacoima, and Wilmington - Harbor City.
|
|
The elderly population (60 years or older) increased by 7.5% between 1980
and 1990. Although the actual number of elderly has increased over the
decade to 470,983, the total percentage of elderly in the population has
decreased from 14.8% to 13.5%. The communities with the largest number of
elderly in 1990 were: Hollywood (31,720), South Central Los Angeles
(29,432), Northeast Los Angeles (28,770), Wilshire (24,615), and Van Nuys
(21,267).
|
Exhibit 2
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS BY PLANNING SUBREGION*
| SUBREGION |
Avg Hshld Size |
Total Household Population |
No. of Dwelling Units |
No. of House- holds |
Group Quarters Population |
Persons/ Dwelling Unit |
| Northeast LA |
3.44 |
402,003 |
127,032 |
116,846 |
7,032 |
3.22 |
| South LA |
3.61 |
479,267 |
147,505 |
132,640 |
9,469 |
3.31 |
| Metro Center |
2.45 |
474,126 |
217,292 |
193,795 |
6,901 |
2.21 |
| Southwest LA |
2.42 |
352,238 |
161,133 |
145,390 |
5,231 |
2.22 |
| Central LA |
3.17 |
135,128 |
50,680 |
42,610 |
15,894 |
2.98 |
| SE Valley |
2.39 |
317,866 |
149,981 |
132,887 |
3,327 |
2.14 |
| NE Valley |
3.63 |
279,529 |
81,610 |
77,076 |
5,137 |
3.49 |
| NW Valley |
2.98 |
287,786 |
108,950 |
96,696 |
4,765 |
2.69 |
| SW Valley |
2.62 |
294,349 |
123,427 |
112,439 |
3,415 |
2.41 |
| West LA |
2.14 |
179,912 |
91,178 |
84,041 |
8,928 |
2.07 |
| Harbor |
3.00 |
176,946 |
64,087 |
58,812 |
2,712 |
2.80 |
| TOTAL |
2.83 |
3,379,149 |
1,322,875 |
1,193,231 |
72,812 |
2.61 |
* Overcrowding is defined as more than 1.01 persons per room.
Local 1994 data on persons per room is not available.
Source: 1994 Population Estimate - L.A. City Planning, Research Section
|
Exhibit 3
1990-94 NET POPULATION GAIN
|
Exhibit 4
1990 MAJORITY ETHNIC GROUP
|
Exhibit 5
PERCENT ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN POPULATION
|
Exhibit 6
PERCENT AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION
|
Exhibit 7
PERCENT HISPANIC AMERICAN POPULATION
|
Exhibit 8
PERCENT WHITE NONHISPANIC POPULATION
|
|
Although the City population is now 15% higher than it was in 1980, the
number of households increased by only 10%, indicating a trend toward
larger household sizes. The average household size increased from 2.61
persons in 1980 to 2.86 persons in 1990 -- the highest it has been since
1940. Household sizes by community range from a high of 4.43 in Arleta -
Pacoima to a low of 1.80 in Sherman Oaks - Studio City - Toluca Lake.
Other communities with large household sizes include Boyle Heights (4.08),
North and East Central City (4.39), Wilmington - Harbor City (3.23), and
Harbor Gateway (3.13), whereas the communities with the smallest
households were found in Central City (1.94), Sherman Oaks (1.80), West
Los Angeles (1.90), and Venice (1.91).
|
|
Employment
|
|
During the period 1990-95, the City and County of Los Angeles experienced
a severe downturn in the economy and a consequent loss of 406,200 jobs.
There were 4,147,100 jobs in 1990 in Los Angeles County, as compared to
3,740,800 in 1995.(8)
|
|
The downturn included more than 25% loss of jobs in the San Fernando
Valley and the communities of South Central and Southeast. The higher
income communities also suffered a 25% reduction in income during this
period due to aerospace and defense industry job losses.
(9)
|
|
The unemployment rate for Los Angeles County has fluctuated over the past
few years as follows:
|
| April 1994 |
- |
9.9% |
| April 1995 |
- |
8.0% |
| February 1996 |
- |
8.3% |
| May 1997 |
- |
6.7% |
|
|
During the period between February 1995 and January 1996 there were job
losses in the following sectors of the economy:
|
| Manufacturing |
(6,700 jobs lost) |
| Mining |
(400) |
| Finance |
(500) |
| Insurance |
(1,900) |
| Federal government |
(1,400) |
| State government |
(1,200) |
| Local government |
(10,300) |
|
|
And there were job gains in these sectors of the economy
(10):
|
| Agriculture |
(700 new jobs) |
| Construction |
(6,500) |
| Retail |
(19,300) |
| Service |
(27,900) |
| Real Estate |
(700) |
|
|
At this time it is the consensus of economic analysts that an upturn in
the economy is underway.
|
|
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
|
|
Existing Need
|
|
HUD considers payments for housing which exceed 30% of gross monthly
income as overpayment. Approximately one-half of the City's households
earn 80% or less of the City median of $30,925 (or $24,740).
|
|
Lower income households which are overpaying for housing are considered
to have an existing housing need, as defined in the 1988 SCAG RHNA -
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Lower income households are defined as
those with incomes less than 80% of the County's median income of $34,965
(or $27,972). This category includes both the very low income (less than
50% of median) and low income.
|
|
According to the 1990 Census there are 1,219,770 households in the City
of Los Angeles. Of these households, 558,045 were lower income (See
Exhibit 9). The 1996 Consolidated Plan indicates that a
total of 498,658 households are overpaying for housing including 142,672
owner and 355,986 renter households.(11)
|
Exhibit 9
RATIO OF LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
Source: 1996 Consoldated Plan
|
|
The 1996 Consolidated Plan compares the rental and owner cost burdens by
income levels. (See Exhibits 10 and
11) This represents an existing need for affordable
housing in the city of 498,658 households earning below 80% of the median.
|
|
Affordability
|
|
The National Association of Realtors has established an index to indicate
affordability. An index of 100 indicates that a family earning the median
income for that particular area can afford to buy a median-priced home.
They also reported that its national housing affordability index for
homebuyers was 131.6 for the first quarter of 1996 (L.A. Times, May 2,
1996). An index of 131.6 means that half the families in the nation had
at least 131.6% of the income needed to purchase a median-priced home. As
shown by the analysis below, less than half of this City's residents can
afford the median-priced home.
|
|
The recession had an effect on the affordable housing crisis in Los
Angeles by decreasing housing costs. The median home price in L.A. County
dropped from $244,500 in 1990 to $170,500 in 1996, or a decrease of 30%.
(12) The mortgage payment on this
hypothetical median price house would be about $1,100 per month (assuming
a 10% down payment and an 8% interest rate). In order to afford this
median priced home, a family would have to earn $40,000 annually.
Forty-six percent of all households in Los Angeles earning less than 80%
of the median income would be unable to meet these mortgage payments.
Using the median income of $30,925, an affordable monthly housing expense
would be no more than $733 per month (or 30% of the median gross income).
|
|
The average rent in 1990 in Los Angeles was $544 per month.
(13) According to the SCAG report
entitled "Southern California Housing Market Data and Trends", the fair
market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment increased by 6% from 1993 to 1995
from $829 per month to $880 per month, while an affordable monthly rent
for very low income renters (<50% of median) in 1995 was $449.
|
|
Overcrowding
|
|
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines overcrowding
as an occupancy of more than 1.01 persons per room. Severely overcrowded
units are defined as those occupied by 1.51 persons or more.
|
|
The 1990 Census showed that there were 479,868 units occupied by owners
and 737,537 units occupied by renters. Of these, there were 270,957
overcrowded and 102,193 severely overcrowded units in the City of Los
Angeles(14) (or 30% of all units),
representing the highest concentration in the region. Statewide, the
percentage of overcrowded units increased from 7.4% in 1980 to 12.3% in
1990, an increase of 60%.
|
|
The 1990 census on population may have resulted in an undercount of
approximately 200,000 persons. The picture of overcrowding presented here
is based on official 1990 census data, but the percentage of overcrowding
units could be higher if the undercount is correct.
|
|
The number of severely overcrowded units in the City increased by 115%
(102,193 units) between 1980 and 1990.(15)
|
Exhibit 10
HOUSEHOLD RENTAL COST BY INCOME LEVEL
| Income Category |
<30% of Yearly Income |
30-50% of Yearly Income |
>50% of Yearly Income |
| Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
| Extremely Low |
12,155 |
2% |
23,353 |
3% |
119,551 |
17% |
| Low |
21,756 |
3% |
58,911 |
8% |
42,041 |
6% |
| Moderate |
85,721 |
12% |
68,856 |
10% |
12,379 |
2% |
| Middle |
44,396 |
6% |
13,275 |
2% |
1,416 |
0% |
| High |
182,635 |
26% |
16,104 |
2% |
100 |
0% |
| Total |
346,663 |
49% |
180,499 |
26% |
175,487 |
25% |
Source: PUMS 1990. Prepared by LAHD, 1995.
|
Exhibit 11
HOUSEHOLD OWNER COST BY INCOME LEVEL
| IncomeCategory |
<30% of Yearly Income |
30-50% of Yearly Income |
>50% of Yearly Income |
| Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
| Extremely Low |
13,607 |
3% |
6,138 |
1% |
15,916 |
3% |
| Low |
19,024 |
4% |
5,309 |
1% |
9,233 |
2% |
| Moderate |
36,215 |
8% |
11,960 |
3% |
13,217 |
3% |
| Middle |
17,940 |
4% |
8,656 |
2% |
4,188 |
1% |
| High |
240,289 |
51% |
55,232 |
12% |
12,823 |
3% |
| Total |
327,075 |
70% |
87,295 |
19% |
55,377 |
12% |
Source: PUMS, 1990. Prepared by LAHD, 1995.
|
Generally, overcrowding is concentrated in the central parts of the City.
The seven communities with the most severely overcrowded units were as
follows:
- Westlake
- Boyle Heights
- North and East Central City
- Southeast Los Angeles
- Arleta - Pacoima
- Silver Lake - Echo Park
- Wilshire
|
|
The lowest incidence of overcrowding in 1990 occurred in the more
affluent areas of Bel Air - Beverly Crest; Brentwood - Pacific Palisades;
and Sherman Oaks - Studio City - Toluca Lake.
(16)
|
|
Overcrowding in this City is highest in rental units. In all, 30% of all
renter-occupied units were overcrowded, compared to 10% of all
owner-occupied units.(17)
|
|
Hispanic and Asians have higher rates of overcrowding than non-Hispanic
white or African-American households, often reflecting cultural
preferences and living standards, as well as affordability. Different
cultures have different standards of size and privacy, and whether or not
extended family lives together in the same dwelling. High income
Hispanic and Asian households have an incidence of overcrowding that
exceeds very poor non-Hispanic whites and Afro-Americans.
(18)
|
|
Household Size
|
|
In 1994 the City Planning Department estimated that there was a total of
1,193,231 occupied dwelling units or households in this City, housing a
total population of 3,451,960, or 2.83 persons per unit.
(19) The total City population (housed
and unhoused) was estimated at 3,451,960. A household is defined as an
occupied dwelling unit. There were 500,245 occupied single-family and
692,986 occupied multifamily dwelling units in the City. Adding
unoccupied units (129,644) to this figure, brings the total of dwelling
units to 1,322,875.
|
|
The citywide average household size of 2.83 has increased from the 2.6
persons per unit which existed in 1980. This increase is documented by
the fact that between 1980 and 1990, City population grew by 17.5%,
while housing stock increased by only 9.3%.
(20)
|
|
The average household size in Southern California rose from 2.72 persons
per unit in 1980 to 2.91 in 1990, as compared to the average household
size in the nation which declined from 2.75 to 2.63 during the decade.
The population growth rate for the Southern California region of 26% for
the preceding decade exceeded household formation rates of 18%.
|
|
The 1990 Census indicated greater numbers of persons per household than
the citywide average in the communities of Boyle Heights (4.1); Northeast
L.A. (3.3); Southeast L.A. (3.9); and South Central L.A. (3.3). (See
Exhibit 12). The need to provide appropriately sized
housing for large families in these communities is greater than other
areas in the City based on this information. Eighty percent (80%) of
large families live in overcrowded conditions. (See Exhibits
13, 14, 15)
|
|
Vacancy Rates
|
|
According to the 1990 Census, the average vacancy rate in Los Angeles was
6% (See Exhibit 16). Due to the recession and the
1994 earthquake, by 1995 vacancy rates had increased to 13.47% for
multifamily and dropped to 4.17% for single family dwellings
(21). Under normal market circumstances,
these levels of vacancy would serve to depress or at least stabilize rent
levels, increasing affordability to lower income households. However, as
reported in "Rental Housing Study 1994: Summary Report on Issues and
Policy Options", an analysis of the Los Angeles rental housing market,
vacancy rates in Los Angeles have not produced lower rents.
|
Exhibit 12
REPORT: 1990 CENSUS BY CPA
| CPA# |
Community Plan Area |
Total
Households |
Average
Household
Size |
Household
Population |
| 1 |
Northeast Los Angeles |
68,711 |
3.27 |
224,872 |
| 2 |
Boyle Heights |
22,432 |
4.08 |
91,459 |
| 3 |
Southeast Los Angeles |
59,366 |
3.80 |
225,780 |
| 4 |
West Adams - Baldwin Hilis |
61,955 |
2.58 |
159,761 |
| 5 |
South Central Los Angeles |
75,433 |
3.16 |
238,205 |
| 6 |
Wilshire |
106,233 |
2.39 |
253,441 |
| 7 |
Hollywood |
91,423 |
2.15 |
196,172 |
| 8 |
Silver Lake - Echo Park |
26,385 |
2.79 |
73,702 |
| 9 |
Westlake |
31,841 |
3.10 |
98,601 |
| 10 |
Central City |
9,218 |
1.94 |
17,870 |
| 11 |
Central City North |
4,102 |
4.39 |
17,991 |
| 12 |
Sherman Oaks - Studio City |
35,490 |
1.80 |
63,896 |
| 13 |
North Hollywood |
47,981 |
2.43 |
116,433 |
| 14 |
Arleta - Pacoima |
19,981 |
4.43 |
88,607 |
| 15 |
Van Nuys - N Sherman Oaks |
53,842 |
2.36 |
126,984 |
| 16 |
Mission Hills - Panorama City |
34,161 |
3.00 |
102,575 |
| 17 |
Sun Valley |
21,499 |
3.42 |
73,499 |
| 18 |
Sylmar |
17,205 |
3.35 |
57,643 |
| 19 |
Granada Hills - Knollwood |
18,758 |
2.81 |
52,705 |
| 20 |
Canoga Park - Winnetka |
55,643 |
2.56 |
142,716 |
| 21 |
Chatsworth - Porter Ranch |
28,575 |
2.69 |
76,800 |
| 22 |
Northridge |
20,691 |
2.73 |
56,577 |
| 23 |
Reseda - W Van Nuys |
31,978 |
2.67 |
85,522 |
| 24 |
Encino - Tarzana |
28,045 |
2.25 |
63,036 |
| 25 |
Sunland - Tujunga |
18,600 |
2.71 |
50,380 |
| 26 |
Westwood |
16,923 |
2.13 |
36,125 |
| 27 |
West Los Angeles |
33,256 |
1.90 |
63,121 |
| 28 |
Palms - Mar Vista - Del Rey |
45,843 |
2.13 |
97,736 |
| 29 |
Venice |
19,152 |
1.91 |
36,557 |
| 30 |
Westchester |
20,434 |
2.15 |
34,986 |
| 31 |
Brentwood - Pacific Palisades |
24,521 |
2.11 |
51,806 |
| 32 |
Bel Air - Beverly Crest |
7,949 |
2.30 |
18,292 |
| 33 |
Wilmington - Harbor City |
21,607 |
3.23 |
69,819 |
| 34 |
San Pedro |
27,198 |
2.49 |
67,776 |
| 35 |
Harbor Gateway |
10,975 |
3.13 |
34,323 |
|
TOTAL: CITY of LOS ANGELES |
1,217,405 |
2.69 |
3,274,769 |
Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing.
|
Exhibit 13
RATIO OF SEVERELY OVERCROWDED UNITS TO TOTAL UNITS
Source: SEIS (1990 Census)
|
|
and are the result of a complex combination of causes, including the
inflation, recession, the Northridge earthquake, the number of rooms
available in vacant housing units, and cultural perceptions of crowding.
The report concludes that in Los Angeles in 1994, higher vacancy rates do
not necessarily produce more affordable housing units.
|
|
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
|
|
Substandard Units
|
|
Substandard housing is either structurally unsound, violates the City's
building codes, is overcrowded, has incomplete plumbing, or does not meet
the Section 8 Existing Housing Quality Standards. Substandard housing
which is suitable for rehabilitation is defined as housing which, in its
current condition, has deficiencies ranging from minor violations of the
City building codes to major health and/or safety violations, which,
nevertheless, can be economically remedied.
(See Exhibit 17)
|
|
In 1990 the City had approximately 144,300 substandard units, or 12% of
the total housing stock. This included 111,100 rental units, 20,296
ownership units, and 12,941 vacant units. About 24,271 of the City's
housing units are so severely deteriorated that they are at risk of
demolition. Between 1980 and 1990, 32,179 units were demolished.
(22)
|
|
Substandard housing units are more likely to be older and concentrated in
South Central, Hollywood, and Northeast Los Angeles.
(23) Exhibit 18
entitled "Age of Dwelling Units by Type" identifies the number
potentially substandard, single and multifamily residences by planning
subregion. (See also Exhibits 19 and
20)
|
|
The Northridge Earthquake of 1994 destroyed or damaged 65,000 dwelling
units. Approximately 19,400 of these earthquake-damaged dwellings had to
be vacated. The Housing Department has made loan commitments to repair
over 12,000 earthquake-damaged dwellings. Repair costs for single-family
dwellings average $38,000, while repairs to multifamily dwellings average
$27,000 according to a city rent study. While the housing units which
were lost had generally not been previously identified as substandard,
their loss has significantly contributed to the affordable housing crisis
in the City.
|
|
Other outside assistance was provided by the federal government. Board up
crews and 24-hour security guards were financed by federal FEMA funds to
protect severely damaged ghost town neighborhoods against vandals. The
Small Business Administration, the U. S. Department of H.U.D., and the
L.A.H.D. collaborated with private lenders to begin financing the
reconstruction of 50,000 housing units.
|
|
The great majority of households (71%) living in substandard housing are
lower income. Latino and Black lower income households comprise the
majority of residents in substandard housing, or 47% and 39%,
respectively. Asian or Pacific Islander (13%) and American Indian or
Alaskan Native.
|
Exhibit 14
PERCENT OWNED DWELLING UNITS SEVERELY OVERCROWDED
|
Exhibit 15
PERCENT RENTED DWELLING UNITS SEVERELY OVERCROWDED
|
Exhibit 16
VACANCY RATES BY COMMUNITY - 1990
| CPA# |
Community Plan Area |
Vacant Units |
Vacancy Rate |
| 1 |
Northeast Los Angeles |
3,886 |
5% |
| 2 |
Boyle Heights |
784 |
3% |
| 3 |
Southeast LA |
3,482 |
6% |
| 4 |
West Adams - Baldwin Hills - Leimert Park |
3,717 |
6% |
| 5 |
South Central LA |
6,292 |
8% |
| 6 |
Wilshire |
7,851 |
7% |
| 7 |
Hollywood |
8,449 |
8% |
| 8 |
Silver Lake - Echo Park |
1,990 |
7% |
| 9 |
Westlake |
2,836 |
8% |
| 10 |
Central City |
1,590 |
15% |
| 11 |
Central City North |
277 |
6% |
| 12 |
Sherman Oaks - Studio City - Toluca Lake - Cahuenga Pass |
2,419 |
6% |
| 13 |
North Hollywood |
2,980 |
6% |
| 14 |
Arleta - Pacoima |
549 |
3% |
| 15 |
Van Nuys - North Sherman Oaks |
4,252 |
7% |
| 16 |
Mission Hills - Panorama City - North Hills |
2,169 |
6% |
| 17 |
Sun Valley - La Tuna Canyon |
892 |
4% |
| 18 |
Sylmar |
544 |
3% |
| 19 |
Granada Hills - Knollwood |
612 |
3% |
| 20 |
Canoga Park - Winnetka - Woodland Hills |
3,516 |
6% |
| 21 |
Chatsworth - Porter Ranch |
1,171 |
4% |
| 22 |
Northridge |
879 |
4% |
| 23 |
Reseda - West Van Nuys |
1,411 |
4% |
| 24 |
Encino - Tarzana |
1,584 |
5% |
| 25 |
Sunland - Tujunga - Lakeview Terrace -
Shadow Hills - East La Tuna Canyon |
976 |
5% |
| 26 |
Westwood |
2,265 |
12% |
| 27 |
West LA |
2,698 |
8% |
| 28 |
Palms - Mar Vista - Del Rey |
2,929 |
6% |
| 29 |
Venice |
1,984 |
9% |
| 30 |
Westchester - Playa Del Rey |
2,168 |
10% |
| 31 |
Brentwood - Pacific Palisades |
1,493 |
6% |
| 32 |
Bel Air - Beverly Crest |
540 |
6% |
| 33 |
Wilmington - Harbor City |
1,294 |
6% |
| 34 |
San Pedro |
1,542 |
5% |
| 35 |
Harbor Gateway |
539 |
5% |
| CITYWIDE TOTAL |
82,558 |
6% |
Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing.
|
Exhibit 17
REPORT 1990 CENSUS BY SUBREGION
|
| Subregion |
Built 1940-1949 |
Built pre-1940 |
Units w/ Kitchen |
Units w/o Kitchens |
Units w/ Plumbing |
Units w/o Plumbing |
| Northeast LA |
20,379 |
42,725 |
121,794 |
2,392 |
122,596 |
1,591 |
| South LA |
30,888 |
41,814 |
114,754 |
2,818 |
141,912 |
2,659 |
| Metro Center |
30,833 |
65,324 |
208,402 |
5,557 |
211,627 |
2,332 |
| Southwest LA |
35,775 |
24,358 |
155,889 |
2,294 |
157,433 |
750 |
| Central LA |
4,961 |
14,297 |
43,599 |
6,260 |
47,110 |
2,749 |
| SE Valley |
23,606 |
9,798 |
145,067 |
1,897 |
146,391 |
573 |
| NE Valley |
10,038 |
3,891 |
79,587 |
710 |
79,646 |
651 |
| NW Valley |
4,999 |
1,390 |
106,314 |
667 |
106,623 |
358 |
| SW Valley |
8,391 |
1,854 |
121,537 |
640 |
121,847 |
330 |
| West LA |
12,368 |
11,392 |
88,353 |
1,271 |
89,459 |
165 |
| Harbor |
8,421 |
9,537 |
62,362 |
799 |
62,556 |
605 |
*Source: City Planning - Research Section - 1995
|
Exhibit 18
AGE OF DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
|
SUBREGION |
50+ yrs |
40-49 yrs |
30-39 yrs |
| Single Family |
Multi- family |
Single Family |
Multi- family |
Single Family |
Multi- family |
| Northeast LA |
9,717 |
53,288 |
3,158 |
4,508 |
3,040 |
6,990 |
| South LA |
11,650 |
66,694 |
719 |
5,672 |
155 |
10,632 |
| Metro Center |
13,313 |
64,336 |
2,006 |
10,646 |
2,471 |
24,621 |
| Southwest LA |
74,563 |
28,345 |
12,986 |
15,669 |
2,190 |
21,637 |
| Central LA |
89 |
13,403 |
34 |
1,099 |
18 |
2,168 |
| SE Valley |
12,952 |
8,102 |
18,273 |
12,459 |
6,027 |
27,057 |
| NE Valley |
6,127 |
1,198 |
15,416 |
1,324 |
9,546 |
2,427 |
| NW Valley |
998 |
287 |
11,525 |
894 |
18,186 |
7,935 |
| SW Valley |
1,587 |
131 |
19,573 |
692 |
22,259 |
8,281 |
| West LA |
10,705 |
3,830 |
7,884 |
5,217 |
7,466 |
13,426 |
| Harbor |
3,410 |
10,606 |
4,321 |
3,654 |
4,480 |
6,777 |
| Total |
145,111 |
250,220 |
95,895 |
61,834 |
75,838 |
131,951 |
*Source: City Planning - Research Section - 1995
|
|
households (1%) comprise the remainder of minority households in this
category. Data on the number of Caucasians living in substandard housing
is not available.
|
|
Age of the Housing Stock
|
|
The average age of single family buildings in Los Angeles is 48 years. As
shown below in Exhibit 20, the oldest single-family housing is located in
South Los Angeles, Northeast Los Angeles, Metro Center, Southwest Los
Angeles, Harbor and Southeast Valley community plan areas. The average
age of housing in the City is 45 years. Older housing stock is also
concentrated in Northeast and West Los Angeles The City's newest single
family housing stock can be found in the Southwest and Northwest Valleys,
with an average age of 29 and 27 years respectively. The average age of
multiple-family buildings in the City is 42 years.
|
|
The oldest apartment buildings predominate in the South Los Angeles and
Northeast Los Angeles subareas, where buildings average 61 and 57 years
respectively. Exhibit 19 also provides a breakdown of
the age of multiple-family buildings by planning subregion.
|
|
As noted, most of the city's older housing stock is located in Northeast,
South and in the Central City areas. In contrast, new construction is
greater outside of the metro and central City areas. These new units are
often constructed in areas of the City where the need for affordable
housing is not the most acute. Moreover, the vast majority of these newly
constructed units are market rate and out of reach to the majority of the
City's population.
|
Exhibit 19
AGE OF DWELLINGS BY YEAR CONSTRUCTED BY TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT
|
SUBREGION |
Constructed
before 1940 |
Constructed
1950-59 |
Constructed
1960-69 |
Constructed
1980 or later |
| SFDU |
MFDU |
SFDU |
MFDU |
SFDU |
MFDU |
SFDU |
MFDU |
| Northeast LA |
28,173 |
39,501 |
4,414 |
4,249 |
2,808 |
8,146 |
1,917 |
4,696 |
| South LA |
35,818 |
51,308 |
1,357 |
7,652 |
291 |
9,557 |
1,503 |
3,026 |
| Metro Center |
22,278 |
71,671 |
2,591 |
23,410 |
3,138 |
26,629 |
1,326 |
7,010 |
| Southwest LA |
19,532 |
21,415 |
10,631 |
21,079 |
2,340 |
17,805 |
606 |
3,193 |
| Central LA |
1,518 |
21,597 |
103 |
3,177 |
309 |
4,587 |
2,247 |
6,695 |
| SE Valley |
9,531 |
4,661 |
14,780 |
17,317 |
4,451 |
23,172 |
1,528 |
2,181 |
| NE Valley |
4,318 |
1,198 |
23,378 |
2,655 |
7,525 |
3,309 |
3,046 |
2,107 |
| NW Valley |
858 |
342 |
27,785 |
2,665 |
15,004 |
12,481 |
3,432 |
1,994 |
| SW Valley |
1,420 |
416 |
37,335 |
2,262 |
15,687 |
13,348 |
1,977 |
2,765 |
| West LA |
10,253 |
3,019 |
8,752 |
9,501 |
6,849 |
12,169 |
456 |
3,895 |
| Harbor |
5,576 |
8,156 |
7,639 |
4,376 |
3,288 |
5,680 |
2,871 |
3,895 |
| TOTALS |
139,275 |
223,284 |
138,765 |
98,343 |
61,690 |
136,883 |
20,909 |
41,457 |
Source: L.A. City Planning Research Unit (Based on 1994 LUPAMSs file)
|
Exhibit 20
AVERAGE BUILDING AGE IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Yrs.)
| SUBREGION |
SINGLE FAMILY AVERAGE AGE |
MULTIPLE FAMILY AVERAGE AGE |
| Northeast LA |
62 |
57 |
| South LA |
69 |
61 |
| Metro Center |
58 |
50 |
| Southwest LA |
52 |
43 |
| Central LA |
48 |
55 |
| SE Valley |
45 |
34 |
| NE Valley |
42 |
35 |
| NW Valley |
35 |
29 |
| SW Valley |
37 |
28 |
| West LA |
43 |
35 |
| Harbor |
47 |
42 |
| CITYWIDE |
48 |
42 |
Source: City of Los Angeles Planning, Citywide Demographics, 1996.
|
|
An update of the City's housing units is found in Appendices
M,
N,
O,
P,
R,
S, and
T
of this document.
|
|
Code Violations
|
|
The Department of Building and Safety's Division of Building Inspection
tracks building and zoning code violations. When a violation is
identified, the property owner is notified with a Correction Notice or
Notice to Comply. Over the two-year period of 1994-95 Correction Notices
were issued to 3,792 commercial and multiple-family property owners in
Los Angeles by the Department of Building and Safety. Exhibit 21 provides
greater detail on the number of Correction Notices and Job Orders issued.
During 1995 there were 1,985 dwelling units brought up to code. Between
1988 and 1995, there was a 261% decrease in Correction Notices issued
citywide due to changes in program funding and prioritizing.
|
|
A Job Order is issued to the property owner who does not correct the
violation. From 1994 to 1995 there were 471 Job Orders issued citywide.
During the period 1995-96 there were 268 job orders issued. If the
property owner does not then comply, prosecution may be initiated.
Ninety-three court cases were filed in 1995.(24)
|
|
Current data on the number of inspections and orders to comply is not
available.
|
Exhibit 21
CORRECTION NOTICES AND JOB ORDERS
COMMERCIAL AND MULTIPLE FAMILY
1994-1995
| Area |
Correction Notices Issued |
Job Orders Issued |
| Los Angeles (Central) |
2041 |
174 |
| Van Nuys |
814 |
70 |
| West Los Angeles |
866 |
223 |
| San Pedro |
71 |
4 |
| Citywide |
3792 |
471 |
Source: Los Angeles City Building & Safety Department, June 1996.
|
Exhibit 22
BUILDING PERMITS BY YEAR*
| PERMIT TYPE |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
| Single-Family Dwellings |
1166 |
910 |
461 |
906 |
| Multiple-Family Rental |
4210 |
1373 |
1505 |
1168 |
| Multiple-Family Ownership |
259 |
213 |
42 |
345 |
| Duplexes |
180 |
94 |
116 |
116 |
| Relocations |
49 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
| Additions/Additional Units |
197 |
213 |
86 |
25 |
| Total Demolitions |
(1587) |
(1123) |
(653) |
(1736) |
| Alterations/Units Removed |
(39) |
(3) |
(28) |
(28) |
| Additional Dwellings |
6061 |
2808 |
2210 |
2563 |
| Units Lost |
1626 |
1126 |
681 |
1764 |
| Net Additional Units |
4435 |
1682 |
1529 |
799 |
*Source: City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department
|
|
Housing Code Enforcement by the Department of Building and Safety
|
Housing code enforcement in the Department of Building and Safety during
the 1997-98 fiscal year was carried out by the Residential Inspection
Section and the Code Enforcement Section. The Residential Inspection
Section was responsible for one and two family dwellings containing three
or more units. The Code Enforcement Section includes four units that
address housing code enforcement: Housing Interagency Task Force, Special
Inspection Task Force, Complaints and Referrals, and Contract Nuisance
Abatement. The Contract Nuisance Abatement unit addresses vacant nuisance
buildings while the other units address occupied buildings. The following
is a brief description of the functions of each unit:
- Contract Nuisance Abatement
-
This section abates nuisances caused by vacant buildings by
barricading, fencing, cleaning, removing graffiti, and demolition.
There are approximately 1,400 vacant residential buildings in the
inventory of buildings where some abatement action has been taken.
Vacant nuisance residential buildings are initially barricaded,
fenced, cleaned, and graffiti removed if the owner does not do the
abatement work after notification by the Department of Building and
Safety. If the vacant residential building is damaged, demolition
is an option. In the case of a building that is determined to be a
present immediate, imminent and extreme hazard, notification of the
owner is not required and the Department of Building and Safety may
proceed with demolition (Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.8905).
In all other cases where demolition is an option the owner is given
written notice to repair or demolish the building. Vacant
residential buildings that are subject to repeat vandalism may be
subject to demolition if after a public hearing before the Board of
Building and Safety Commissioners the building is determined to be
a nuisance.
During the 1997-98 fiscal year the Department of Building and
Safety authorized through private contractors the demolition of 95
buildings, fencing of 320 properties, barricading and cleaning of
360 buildings, and graffiti removal of 250 buildings. The cost of
the abatement work plus a 40% administrative are assessed against
the property by the City Council.
- Residential Inspection Section
-
During the 1997-98 fiscal year this section inspected new construction
and alteration of one- and two-family dwellings as well as code
enforcement on these properties. Code enforcement is initiated by
complaints from the public, offices of the City Council and Mayor,
and other governmental agencies. Complaints are investigated and an
order to comply (OTC) is issued to the property owner if code
violations are found. The OTC indicates any code violation(s) and
the compliance date which is usually 30 days except for emergency and
hazardous conditions. If the code violations have not been removed
by the compliance date a noncompliance fee may be assessed fifteen
days from the compliance date. The noncompliance fee for a single-
family dwelling is $100 and $190 for a two-family dwelling. The
purpose of the noncompliance fee is recover the cost of inspections
to gain compliance with the OTC. A notice of substandard residential
building is recorded against properties that meet the criteria for a
substandard residential building. The Franchise Tax Board is notified
of residential rental properties that are not in compliance 180 days
after the compliance date.
During the 1997-98 fiscal year this section investigated 23,000
complaints of code violations. Approximately 40% or 9,200 did not
have code violations.
- Complaints and referrals
-
During the 1997-98 fiscal year this section investigated complaints
regarding commercial and industrial properties and residential
properties containing more than two dwelling units. Code enforcement
is initiated by complaints from the public, offices of the City
Council and Mayor, and other governmental agencies. Complaints are
investigated and an order to comply (OTC) is issued to the property
owner if code violations are found. The OTC indicates code
violation(s) and the compliance date, which is usually 30 days except
for emergency and hazardous conditions. If the code violations have
not been removed by the compliance date a noncompliance fee may be
assessed fifteen days from the compliance date. The noncompliance fee
for multiple dwelling is $100 for the first unit, plus $90 for each
additional unit up to ten units, and $70 for each unit in excess of
ten units. The purpose of the noncompliance for is recover the cost
of inspection to gain compliance with the OTC. A notice of substandard
residential building is recorded against properties that meet the
criteria for a substandard residential building. The Franchise Tax
Board is notified of residential rental properties that are not in
compliance 180 days after the compliance date.
During the 1997-98 fiscal year this section investigated 15,700
complaints of code violations. Approximately 40% or 6,200 did not
have code violations. Approximately 60% of the complaints involved
multiple-family properties.
Effective July 1, 1998, the code enforcement of multiple-family housing
as transferred from the Department of Building and Safety to the
Housing Department. This program will not target commercial and
industrial properties.
- Housing Interagency Task Force
-
The Housing Interagency Task Force operates under the direction of
the City Attorney's office with representatives from the Department
of Building and Safety, Los Angeles County Department of Health
Services, and the Fire Department. This task force targets owners of
slum properties with criminal prosecution. The criteria for inclusion
in this program are multiple-family buildings two or more stories in
height and more than 16 units.
During the 1997-98 fiscal year the Housing Interagency Task Force
opened 26 cases, filed 25 cases, closed 36 cases by the City Attorney,
186 cases investigated for possible inclusion into this program, 97
cases in compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and 87
pending cases at the end of the fiscal year.
Although effective July 1, 1998, the code enforcement of multiple-family
housing was transferred from the Department of Building and Safety to
the Housing Department, the inspectors in this program are assigned
to the Department of Building and Safety.
- Special Inspection Task Force
-
The Special Inspection Task Force (SITF) inspects multiple-family and
commercial properties that have multiple code violations including
building, electrical, plumbing, heating and refrigeration. The task
force members conduct the inspections as a team similar to the
Housing Interagency Task Force. The multiple-family properties that do
not meet the criteria for the Housing Interagency Task Force are
targeted by this task force.
Following an inspection of the property, orders to comply are issued
to the owners. The OTC indicates the code violation(s) and the
compliance date which is usually 30 days except for emergency and
hazardous conditions. If the code violations have not been removed
by the compliance date, a noncompliance fee may be assessed fifteen
days from the compliance date. The noncompliance fee for multiple
dwelling is $100 for the first unit, plus $90 for each additional
unit up to ten units, and $70 for each unit in excess of ten units.
The purpose of the noncompliance fee is recover the cost of
inspections to gain compliance with the OTC. A notice of substandard
residential building is recorded against properties that meet the
criteria for a substandard residential building. The Franchise Tax
Board is notified of residential rental properties that are not in
compliance 180 days after the compliance date.
During the 1997-98 fiscal year the task force investigated 297 new
complaints, opened 281 cases, closed 235 cases with 476 cases pending
at the end of the fiscal year. Approximately 50% of the cases in this
program are multiple-family housing.
|
|
Slum Housing
|
|
Multiple-family slum housing threatens the health and safety of its occupants
due to structural defects, roach and rat infestation, inadequate plumbing,
and faulty electrical wiring. Generally, slum housing occurs due to a high
level of deferred maintenance. Repairs necessary to bring the building
into compliance with building and health codes are deferred in the
interest of profit. These building owners often exploit low income tenants
by charging higher rent per square foot than that found in more upscale
neighborhoods.
|
|
The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) has implemented several slum
abatement programs related to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO),
including the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP), Habitability Enforcement
Program (HEP), Rent Reduction Program (RRP), Utility Maintenance Program
(UMP), and Urgent Repair Program (URP). These programs are described in
detail later in this section. In addition, the Rent Stabilization Division
of the LAHD investigates complaints lodged through the rent hotline.
Investigators evaluate complaints related to RSO violations and slum
conditions and attempt to conciliate programs with landlords and tenants.
Failure to resolve complaints results in referral to an enforcement
agency, such as the Systematic Housing Code Enforcement Program or the
Slum Housing Task Force.
|
|
To prosecute slumlords, the City has established the Slum Housing Task
Force, an inter-departmental task force consisting of the
City Attorney's Office, the Department of Building and Safety, the Fire
Department, and the County Health Department. Local and state laws
affecting the habitability of multi-unit residential rental properties
are enforced through this process, as well as information dissemination,
dispute resolution, and traditional litigation. Cases are received from
public and private sources including inspection agencies, City Council
offices, legal service providers, and individual citizens. The purpose
of the Task Force is to focus investigative and litigation resources on
those multi-unit residential properties that present the greatest
habitability hazards in the City. By eliminating duplicate
investigations, this combined approach focuses all resources on a
particular property. Slumlords receive fines ranging from $2,000 to
$15,000, and/or jail time and "house arrest."
|
|
Further, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA)
conducts annual inspections for all housing units that receive housing
assistance including Section 8 assisted units, public housing units, and
other assisted housing. These inspections are completed using housing
quality standards (HQS), which are designed to maintain decent, safe and
sanitary housing. These inspections assess both the interior and
exterior of housing units and include general health and safety (such as
access, infestation, trash, stairs, lead-based paint, floors, windows,
screens, glass), plumbing and heating, electrical, walls, walkways, etc.
Any deficiencies are cited and prioritized; emergency items such as
plumbing are required to be corrected within 24 hours. Major deficiencies
are required to be corrected within 25 days. Section 8 assisted housing
units that are cited result in the abatement of the housing assistance
payment (HAP), if not corrected within 30 days, with contract termination
beginning at sixty (60)days. The HACLA completes over 80,000 inspections
annually as follows:
|
| Section 8 |
71,987 Units |
| Housing Management |
8,183 Units |
| Property Management Division |
810 Units |
|
|
Housing Code Enforcement by the Los Angeles Housing Department
|
|
The City of Los Angeles implemented a new approach to housing code
enforcement, called the Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP), on
July 1, 1998. SCEP is a proactive inspection program that evaluates
all multiple-family housing in the City at least once in the course of three
years. This section describes the new program and the connection of that
program with other slum abatement programs currently active in the City
of Los Angeles.
|
| BACKGROUND |
|
In late 1996, a group of citizens organized the Blue Ribbon Citizens'
Committee on Slum Housing to evaluate slum housing conditions in the City
of Los Angeles. Consisting of representatives from the legal, real
estate, religious, political, financial, academic, and affordable housing
fields, the Blue Ribbon Citizen's Committee sought to elevate the
visibility of slum housing problems in the City and to propose and seek
implementation of programs in the City and County that would eradicate
slum housing.
|
The first report, The Slum Housing Problem in Los Angeles and the
Department of Building and Safety, evaluated the effectiveness of the
City Department of Building and Safety's housing inspection program.
Released July 29, 1997, this report found that:
- the slum housing problem in Los Angeles is growing;
- the current inspection process offers no incentives for owners to
repairsubstandard conditions;
- enforcement activities were ineffective on all but the worst
properties;
- the current system failed mostly dueto inadequate enforcement of
housing codes;
- activities among enforcement agencies required substantial
coordination to become effective;
- there was no accountability for the resolution of code violations;
- the code enforcement system relies on complaints yet makes lodging
a complaint difficult; and
- there is no effective management information system to track
inspections or staff performance or efficiency.
|
|
The Blue Ribbon Citizen's Committee offered 10 recommendations, including
the establishment of a routine periodic inspection program; creation of a
single-purpose housing code enforcement and inspection service; and
restructuring of the code enforcement process in ways that increase
accountability for repairs, expand use of enforcement tools, and
implement use of current technologies to monitor effectiveness and
efficiency of the program.
|
|
The second report of the Blue Ribbon Citizen's Committee, The Slum
Housing Problem in Los Angeles County and the County Department of Health
Services, released August 12, 1997, evaluated the County Department of
Health Services housing inspection program. The second report identified
the low priority given to addressing slum housing as a priority; failure
to fully implement the annual multiple-family inspection program;
inconsistent follow-up enforcement; deficiencies in notice to tenants
of existing dangerous conditions; insufficient coordination among other
agencies; and lack of a management information system to track
inspections and staff efforts.
|
|
Recommendations regarding improvement of the County Department of Health
Services housing inspection program echoed those for the City Department
of Building and Safety, focusing on periodic inspections, coordination
among involved agencies, follow-up inspections, and use of current
technologies to track inspection and staff information.
|
|
In response to the first Blue Ribbon Citizen's Committee report on the
Department of Building and Safety, the Los Angeles City Council on July
29, 1998, created the Ad Hoc Committee on Substandard Housing to address
these issues. As a result of efforts by the Ad Hoc Committee, many City
departments, and the Blue Ribbon Citizen's Committee, a new proactive
housing code enforcement program was implemented in the City of Los
Angeles on July 1, 1998.
|
| SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM |
|
The new Systematic Code Enforcement program will be situated in the Los
Angeles Housing Department. Every multiple-family housing unit in the City of
Los Angeles will be inspected at least once in the course of a three-year
period. Housing units with code violations will be reinspected within 2,
15, or 30 days, depending upon the severity of the violation, to ensure
repair and compliance with the housing code. If a property owner makes a
good faith effort to effect repairs, the inspector will schedule another
reinspection. However, if the property owner fails to comply, a General
Manager's hearing will be held, at which time either the property will be
referred to appropriate agencies and programs that address slum
properties or the property owner will be given an additional opportunity
to make the required repairs. |
|
The initial proposal regarding fees is that property owners will be
charged a $1 per month, per unit service fee for inspections or an annual
$12 per unit. Owners will be able to pass-through this fee to their
tenants, pending final approval by the City Council. Property owners will
be given the option of paying the fee yearly or quarterly, depending upon
the size of the apartment building. Additional fees ill be charged if
reinspections are required after the General Manager's Hearing as a
result of noncompliance with the Housing Code. These fees will be charged
to the property owner.
|
|
An integral part of this program is a Community Outreach program. A 24-
hour message hotline is made available by tenant and landlord
organizations to answer questions regarding housing code enforcement
questions. In addition, these community organizations will investigate
and mediate complaints regarding housing conditions. If the complaint
cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the property will then be
forwarded to the Systematic Code Enforcement program for additional
action.
|
|
In the case of extreme health and safety hazards, Inspectors will be able
to issue an Emergency Abate Order, in which the property owner must
immediately remedy imminent health and safety hazards. Failure to comply
will result in a notice to vacate, boarding and fencing of the property,
or, in the most severe situations, demolition of the property. The City
will cover the cost of tenant relocation, boarding, fencing, or
demolition and charge the property owner for these expenses.
|
|
Should a property owner fail to bring their property into compliance with
the City's housing code, the Los Angeles Housing
Department (LAHD) has several programs designed to eliminate slum housing
in the City. These programs are driven by both tenant complaints and
inspection referrals. Many include rent reductions until the substandard
housing conditions have been repaired. Rent reductions don't actually
result in a permanently lower rent. When a rent reduction is implemented,
the tenant is directed to pay a portion of their full monthly rent to the
property owner and the remainder to LAHD. LAHD then escrows this portion
of the rent until the property owner has fully repaired the property. Once
the complaints against the property have been resolved, the rents placed
in escrow are returned to the property owner.
|
|
The Habitability Enforcement Program (HEP) is a tenant initiated
complaint process. Complaints are specific to individual units in a
building, though many tenants can group together to address the building.
A hearing officer examines the claim of the tenant and the position of
the property owner to determine whether the property should be included
in HEP. If the hearing officer determines that the tenant complaint has
merit, the tenant receives a rent reduction until repairs are made. This
rent reduction must be approved by City Council.
|
|
Slum properties enter the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and Rent
Reduction Program (RRP) through Systematic Code Enforcement citations. In
REAP, tenants pay their entire rent to the City to be put into escrow
until citations against the property are resolved. The interdepartmental
REAP committee reviews every building that enters REAP and determines
whether a property owner has satisfactorily resolved complaints against
their property. The City Council must approve placement of any property
in REAP, as well as removal from REAP. RRP, on the other hand, is
administered within the Department.
|
|
If Housing, Fire, or Health inspectors identify a building with life
threatening conditions, they refer that property to the Urgent Repair
Program (URP). If a building is referred to URP, the property owner is
ordered to repair the condition within 48 hours. If the property is not
brought into compliance and the property owner has not displayed due
diligence to effect the repairs, LAHD makes the repairs and places the
building in REAP. The building is not released from REAP until the City
has recovered the cost of the repairs plus 40% for administrative fees
through rents paid by tenants directly to the City.
|
|
In a worst case scenario, some property owners are nonresponsive and fail
to resolve complaints against their property despite multiple violations.
In this case, LAHD's Receivership program is activated and a financial
analysis is conducted on the property to determine repair costs. If the
property can be economically repaired, an independent receiver will ask
the courts to transfer control of the property to the receiver. Using
funds from the Low Income Housing fund, LAHD rehabilitates the property.
The receiver then ensures that rents or any income from the property sale
repay the City for all rehabilitation costs plus administrative fees.
|
|
Finally, lenders operating in the Los Angeles area are developing low
cost loan products to assist property owners willing to make required
repairs but financially unable to do so. These lenders, including Bank of
America, Home Savings, Sanwa Bank, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, and
many others have pledged $150 million in mortgage capital to give
property owners the resources needed to make necessary repairs.
|
|
Moving out of slum housing is difficult for poor tenants because these
families must save the first and last month's rent and a security
deposit. This is nearly impossible for those subsisting on low wages or
welfare. Although slum housing is also a problem in single-family and
other low density units such as duplexes and triplexes, owners of these
buildings are not usually the targets of legal action because,
comparatively, they house fewer tenants.
|
|
Seismic Safety
|
|
The City has a voluntary requirement for seismic upgrade and/or
reinforcement to mitigate potential loss of life in multiple-family
buildings. Division 88 of the Los Angeles City Building Code requires
that all buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls built before
October 1933 have a seismic upgrade. Division 88 covers all buildings
except those with less than 4 residential units. Since the passage of
Division 88 in February 1981, 6,021 apartment units (12%) of a total of
almost 50,000 have been lost through demolition. This includes both
Division 88 enforcement and natural attrition. Approximately 80% of
unreinforced masonry buildings are located in the plan areas of: Central
City, Westlake, Wilshire, and Hollywood.
|
|
As of 1981 the original number of residential buildings with unreinforced
masonry (URM) bearing walls was 1,676, containing 48,519 units. As of
August 31, 1991, there were 1,463 buildings housing 42,207 units. The
Department of Building and Safety reported in September 1996
(25) that there were a total of 555
buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls.
|
|
There are 1,132 buildings with unreinforced masonry non-bearing walls in
the City which are not covered by Division 88. These buildings are
covered by Senate Bill 547 which requires that buildings be surveyed and
a seismic mitigation plan developed to identify measures to reduce their
potential hazards. An ordinance is being drafted to implement this Bill.
Of the 1,132 unreinforced masonry buildings not covered by Division 88,
167 are apartment buildings housing 8,338 dwelling units.
|
|
The need to seismically upgrade or reinforce dwelling units will
temporarily displace occupants and reduce the amount of affordable
housing.
|
|
Public Housing Stock
|
|
Public housing is the most affordable housing option in the City of Los
Angeles as tenants pay no more than 30% of their income for rent. This
housing stock makes a significant contribution in a market where
affordable housing is scarce. There are 8,465 units of conventional
public housing units located in 20 developments, which are owned and
operated by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA).
Most of these conventional public housing units, which were built in the
40's, and 50's, are in great need of modernization.
(26) The estimated cost for this major
rehabilitation is $805 million.
|
|
The demand for these units is so strong that they are filled to capacity
and have waiting lists. Housing Authority-owned units include 94
zero-bedroom units; 1,401 one-bedroom units, 4,083 two-bedroom units;
2,083 three-bedroom units; 594 four-bedroom units; and 205 five-bedroom
units. As of May 1996, HACLA reported that they had 10,943 families on
the waiting list including 2,715 waiting for the 1-bedroom units; 2,167
waiting for the 2-bedroom units; 4,980 waiting for the 3-bedroom units,
986 waiting for the 4-bedroom units; and 95 waiting for the 5-bedroom
units.(27)
|
|
Although they are an important part of the City's overall low-income
housing stock, public housing is generally located in the City's older
areas in need of economic revitalization and social assistance. There
are several steps which can be taken to address these long standing
problems: 1)physical improvements to the public housing developments can
be made to enhance security; 2) comprehensive modernization of the units
can be implemented; 3) living conditions can be improved through resident
involvement, management, and employment; 4) drug and gang problems can be
addressed through active programs; and 5) economic development of the
community can be enhanced.
|
|
Other programs include 700 units of subsidized senior/disabled
multiple-family housing built under Section 8 New Construction Program,
100 units built under Section 23 Program, 600 units of fair market and
affordable senior citizen housing, 966 units under Project-Based
Certificate Program, 372 units under the Aftercare Program, 135
certificates under the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, and
471 certificates under HOPWA Program.
|
|
Mobile Homes
|
|
There are currently 62 mobile home parks with a total number of 6,942
mobile pads located in the City of Los Angeles. The number of pads per
mobile park site ranges from 5 to 1,000. These mobile home parks are
governed by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), and located
throughout the City, predominantly in the San Fernando Valley. Their
occupancy rate reaches the maximum due to the increase of rent allowed
by the vacation of a pad.
|
|
According to the August 1998 figures, the monthly rent charged in the
mobile parks located in the Sylmar Community plan area ranged from $475
to $629, while the average monthly rent in the San Pedro Community plan
area was $950.
|
|
HOUSING CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION
|
|
The Housing Element contains policies and programs designed to stimulate
production of rental and ownership housing affordable to very low-, low-
and moderate-income households (See Chapters V and
VI). The policies and implementation programs in
the Housing Element, such as the "Affordable Housing Incentives
Ordinance", will result in an increase in housing opportunity for the
residents of the City of Los Angeles.
|
|
Other City policies and implementation strategies to identify land use
locations and guide growth include the General Plan Framework Element
(which was adopted by City Council on December 11, 1996), 35 community
plans (such as Northeast or Boyle Heights), specific plans, General Plan
amendments, the Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance, and the Mixed-Use
ordinance.
|
|
The Framework Element is the conceptual umbrella land use plan linking
all other plans. It expands upon former plans such as the Centers Concept
which concentrated development in identified centers. The Framework
Element proposes to concentrate development along selected mixed use
boulevards (as well as centers) linking transit (buses and light rail) to
development centers which include multiple-family residential as well
as commercial uses. Residential land uses where changes are recommended
will accommodate higher density residential development in selected areas
including centers, along major transportation corridors, and adjacent to
transit stations as set forth more specifically in the community plans.
|
|
The Mixed-Use (commercial and residential) ordinance will establish mixed-
use districts citywide where development may occur without required
discretionary approvals (commonly referred to as "by right"). This
ordinance establishes incentives for mixed-use development such as
reduced parking, increased floor area ratio (F.A.R.), and increased
height. A height increase incentive of 10 feet is offered to encourage
architectural diversity such as varied roof lines and building setbacks.
|
|
The Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance, recently adopted by the City
Council, acts as an enabling tool for the state density bonus law by
providing incentives (such as reduced parking) for the provision of
affordable housing. This ordinance, which was prepared by the Planning
Department in conjunction with the Housing Department, received an
American Planning Association award in early summer 1996.
|
|
An analysis of the General Plan Zoning Consistency Program, which was
completed several years ago, was discussed in the prior Housing Element.
This program "downzoned" many parcels throughout the city consistent with
land use designations on the 35 different community plans. The community
plans reflect the communities' view of what their areas should be over a
20-year period. However, a significantly large potential for development
of housing remains in these plans.
|
|
Barriers
|
|
Some barriers to the development of housing in Los Angeles include the
high cost of land and materials, the cost of financing, governmental
regulations, application processing time, and the lack of available
land.
|
|
At the request of Mayor Richard Riordan, a Development Reform Committee
was formed in 1995 to identify and rectify City permitting procedures
which had caused lengthy processing delays. The committee completed its
work and many of its recommendations are in place. The recommendations
include appointment of case managers to assist applicants in the
application process and advise applicants on city regulations and
processing procedures; standardization of procedures, and shortened time
frames.
|
|
The City also instituted permit streamlining to expedite permit approvals
for zone changes, variances, conditional uses, subdivisions, and other
variations from the "by right" uses granted under the zone. In addition
to permit streamlining, the Planning Department was asked to prepare a
handbook on permit procedures. Another measure which has already been
implemented is the consolidation of public hearings for individual cases
when desired by the applicants.
|
|
Opportunity/Accessibility |
|
The lower-income population (earning <80% of median) often encounters a
lack of housing opportunities in this city due to high cost and limited
income. Accessibility to housing may also be limited on the basis of
gender, race, ethnicity, and age or marital status. These criteria are
Federal, State and Local law. In addition, the State identifies a number
of other population segments with special housing needs including the
elderly, homeless, persons with disabilities, large families, female
heads of household, and farmworkers that may have a lack of opportunity
and/or accessibility. The City has established policies and programs to
address the issues of opportunity and accessibility encountered by the
above groups which are outlined in Chapters V and
VI.
|
|
A more detailed discussion of the above special needs groups and their
housing related problems is found in Chapter III.
|
|
Liveable Neighborhoods for Everyone
|
|
Liveability is defined as the ability of citizens to live in adequate
housing in an environment free from hazardous, unsafe, and nuisance-
filled neighborhoods.
|
|
General planning policies which enhance liveability include a balance
between residential land use densities and intensities and the capacities
of the circulation and service systems.
|
The City goal which addresses liveability is stated as follows:
Preservation, stabilization, and enhancement of liveability in all
neighborhoods throughout the City.
|
The City has established specific objectives, policies, and programs to
implement the goal of liveability. The purpose statement regarding
liveability is given as follows:
Creation of a city of liveable and sustainable neighborhoods with a
range of housing types and costs in mutual proximity to jobs,
infrastructure and services.
|
|
The technical advisory committee that provided input into the liveability
goal and purpose statement was composed of representatives from other
city departments, non-profit housing agencies, private lenders, and
homeowners' associations.
|
|
Neighborhood Preservation and Recovery Program (NPRP)
|
The Neighborhood Preservation and Recovery Program (NPRP) focuses on 19
neighborhoods in decline to promote safe, livable communities.
Neighborhood Recovery relies on the cooperation of community members,
leaders, and organizations; government agencies and departments both
within the City at regional, state and federal levels; and building
owners and their lenders who control substandard buildings and vacant
lots in blighted areas. NPRP is currently focused on the following
neighborhoods and communities.
- Sherman Way / Variel
- North Hills
- Blythe Street
- Yucca Corridor
- Echo Park
- Belmont
- First and Chicago
- Fickett Corridor
- Pleasant Avenue / Mariachi Plaza
- Jefferson / Hauser
- Baldwin Village
- 23rd Street
- Manual Arts
- Hyde Park
- Vermont East
- 92nd and Western
- Hickory / Santa Ana
- Harbor City
- Wilmington
- San Pedro
Housing conditions can be described in four states that fall between a
healthy building and a building to be demolished.
Exhibit 23 shows the four stages that have been identified and
conditions that describe this state. While a community is involved in the
NPRP program, buildings are constantly evaluated against this measure.
|
Working relationships have been established among the Mayor's Office,
City Council deputies and 15 City Departments since the inception of the
Neighborhood Recovery Program in August 1993 to address a wide range of
community problems. Issues addressed include:
- Enforcement of building codes
- Increased nuisance abatement
- Increased health citations
- Increased loans for rehabilitation of substandard buildings in need
ofimmediate repair
- Increased police patrols
- Graffiti abatement
- Decreased gang activity
- Decreased drug sales activity
- Improved property management by property owners
- Increased home ownership
- Increased public improvements of alleys, curbs, sidewalks,
lighting, tree trimming and tree planting
- Increased recycling efforts
- Increased neighborhood wall-murals
- Increased recreational alternatives for youth-at-risk
- Increased interest and commitment of residents to their
neighborhoods
|
|
Targeted Neighborhoods Initiative (TNI)
|
The Targeted Neighborhood Initiative (TNI) was proposed by Mayor Richard
Riordan as a new way to revitalize the City of Los Angeles. The TNI would
create the mechanisms and relationships necessary to implement a
coordinated effort between City Departments and with area stakeholders.
By creating these mechanism and relationships it is hoped that duplicate
efforts will be minimized, and that the supplemental Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars will be leveraged for greater
impact. TNI will be implemented in the following 11 neighborhoods:
- Highland Park
- North Hollywood
- Canoga Park
- South Crenshaw
- Van Nuys Boulevard (Pacoima)
- Exposition Park
- Central Avenue
- Washington Boulevard
- Echo Park
- Boyle Heights
- Harbor Gateway
The eleven targeted Neighborhoods will report directly to the Support
Group for the Coordinating Committee, which in turn will report to the
General Managers of the four lead agencies (CRA, City Planning, LAHD,
CDD) identified by the Mayor. The General Managers of the four lead
agencies are responsible for reporting to the whole Coordinating
Committee and the Mayor. The 3 million dollars ($1 million/year) are
intended to supplement City efforts, and not replace any existing program.
With this in mind the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) has designed
three new loan programs to address TNI needs.
- Micro-Loan Program
-
This loan program is designed to assist neighborhood residents and
property owners by providing financial assistance to make immediate
and necessary home improvements. Improvements include, but are not
limited to aesthetically appropriate security and safety features
(smoke detectors, security gates and window bars, lighting); exterior
painting; landscaping (design guidelines will be provided for crime
prevention landscaping recommendations); roof, gutters, and related
water damage, retaining wall, driveway/walkway repair; and access
accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For owner-occupied units, a $5,000 maximum forgivable loan will be
made available to owners of single-family homes (one to four units)
with a 20% reduction of principal for each of five years. Nonowner
occupied single-family homes (one to four units) may receive a
deferred loan of up to $5,000, due when the property is sold,
transferred or refinanced.
For mixed-use buildings (commercial on the first floor and housing
units above), a maximum $5,000 housing facade improvement loan
program using the same terms as above will apply. This facade program
will use the loan for the housing above the commercial to complement
the commercial facade improvements.
Owners of multiple-family dwellings (five units or more) will be able
to receive a $10,000 maximum loan with the principal deferred until
the property is sold, transferred, or refinanced. A Property
Management Training Course may be required for all owners who do not
permanently reside at the home being rehabilitated.
- Community Enhancement Rehabilitation Loan Program
-
This loan program is specifically designed to provide rehabilitation
funds to property owners in order to: 1) subsidize the cost of home
improvements that must adhere to historical preservation
requirements, 2) build an additional bedroom and/or bathroom to
accommodate large families, and 3) correct code violations or obtain
permits for prior property improvements that do not adhere to
building standards and have been cited by the Department of Building
and Safety (or another citing agency) to bring these improvements
into compliance with current codes. Allowable improvements will be
subject to departmental review.
Owner-occupied single-family home owners (one to four units) will be
eligible to receive a $15,000 maximum forgivable loan with a 20%
reduction of principal for each of five years. Nonowner-occupied
single-family home owners will receive a deferred loan, due when the
property is sold, transferred or refinanced. Funded properties must
comply with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
required Housing Quality Standards (HQS), and owners can apply for an
LAHD NPP loan to bring the property to HQS, if necessary.
- Homeownership Down Payment Assistance Program
-
This loan program provides up to $10,000 for assistance in Down
payment and or closing costs to low-income homebuyers. A minimum of
$1,000 Down payment must be provided by the homebuyer. A five-year
homeowner occupancy requirement comes with this loan. This program
can be used in combination with the LAHD's existing homeownership
program which provide deferred second mortgage and affordable first
mortgage financing to allow homeownership opportunities to low
income households. This Down payment assistance program can be used
in combination with either the Micro-Loan Program or the community
enhancement program.
|
Exhibit 23
HOUSING CONDITION STATUS*
| First Stage |
Second Stage |
Third Stage |
Fourth Stage |
The building has a few vacancies
Cash flow reduced by depressed rental market
Deferred maintenance
|
Vacancies increase
Graffiti
Criminal activity begins
Minor code violations
|
Low occupancy level
Multiple calls to LAPD
Tenants involved in drugs, gang and other criminal activity
Multiple and severe code violations
|
Buildings is vacant, no paying tenants
Site of flagrant criminal activity
Fire hazard
|
* The process for neighborhood recovery
is conducted in phases, as described in Exhibit 24 below:
|
Exhibit 24
PHASES
| Phase One |
Phase Two |
Phase Three |
Phase Four |
| Neighborhood evaluation |
Community policing:
work and LAPD and neighborhood watch |
Promote home ownership |
Monitoring and maintenance |
| Outreach to tenants and apartment owners |
Escalated enforcement against substandard buildings |
Financing solutions:
HOME funding
Emergency repair loans |
|
| Building evaluation and owner contact |
Clean-up, Lighting, Alley paving and closing |
Physical improvements:
Curbs, sidewalk repair; Alley paving, lighting and gating;
street paving |
|
| Mapping |
Adopt a school |
|
|
| |
Community events |
|
|
| |
Beautification, Tree plantings and Mural painting |
|
|
|
|
Housing In Proximity to Jobs
|
|
Ideally, all workers would be within walking distance of their jobs.
However, Los Angeles is very spread out with many workers traveling up to
100 miles a day to commute to their jobs.
|
|
Achieving the goal of proximity of jobs and affordable housing is
critical to maintaining the City's quality of life, managing traffic
congestion, and reducing air pollution. Planning for high density
development adjacent to transit corridors and bus stops is one of the
implementing tools used to achieve this goal. The Citywide General Plan
Framework, which outlines an approach to integration of land use and
transportation planning at the citywide level, has been approved by the
City Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council.
|
|
Housing Quality
|
|
Although good building design enhances all neighborhoods, housing quality
involves not only the physical condition of the City's housing stock but
also the livability of the neighborhood and the adequacy of its
amenities, facilities and services. Housing Element policies encourage
building designs which incorporate adequate space for privacy and
recreation. The Element also calls for enforcement of code standards
which provide minimum levels of light, air, and amenities in all housing.
|
|
Concerned by the need to promote livability and enhance security of
housing developments that serve all segments of the population, the City
Planning Commission has adopted a policy which provides for minimum
usable open space of 100 square feet per unit in all multiple-family
residential developments of six dwellings or more which require
commission approval. A site plan review ordinance has also been adopted
to help ensure that projects with 50 or more dwelling units are properly
related to their sites, surrounding properties and environmental setting.
|
|
The Affordable Housing Incentives Program requires that all dwelling
units within a multiple-family development have the same amenities to
eliminate stigmatization of low income families. The City Planning
Department implements the State Mello Act in the coastal zone by
requiring replacement of demolished or converted affordable housing lost
in the redevelopment process. An in-lieu fee is required if replacement
within 3 miles of the coast is not feasible.
|
|
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
|
|
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT |
Energy conservation is encouraged by the design and placement of,
shading and landscaping of buildings. Conserving resources, natural
habitat and air quality ensures livability of future generations.
(28)
Greater energy conservation leading to sustainability can be achieved by
a more efficient use of land such as that obtained with higher
residential densities in appropriate locations. Increased residential
density utilizes less land, utilities, streets, and sidewalks. The
Washington State Energy Office in Redevelopment for Liveable
Communities states as follows:
Sprawling development increases costs for sewers, water, roads,
electricity, and other infrastructure services. Compact developments
cost less, are a more efficient land use, . . . and offers convenient
access to transit.[p. 4]
Historically, cheap energy stimulated the development of more streets and
use of the automobile which is dependent upon oil.
(29) Transit-oriented development, in contrast, locates
higher intensity residential and commercial uses near transit stations.
|
|
The City is currently studying a number of rapid transit station areas
where development will be encouraged to take place within one-half mile
of these stations.
|
|
Building codes and practices should be consistent with a sustainable,
energy efficient, community vision. When developing plans, communities
should consider the potential impact on the amount of energy consumed
per capita, and waste stream volume.
|
|
Zoning which allows for home businesses and nearby commercial and retail
services would also reduce energy consumption. A home occupation
ordinance, which has been effective since January 4, 1997, legalizes
certain at- home / work land uses, and could help reduce vehicle
emissions, improve air quality, and conserve fuel and other types of
energy.
|
|
The City's Mixed-Use Incentive Ordinance, allows for the combination of
residential and commercial uses in a single building or unified
development. The object of this ordinance is to reduce vehicle miles
traveled by locating housing, jobs, and services in proximity. A more
detailed discussion of this ordinance is included in Chapter 3,
"Land for Residential Development."
|
|
Potential energy savings can be achieved through the use of urban
agriculture by reduction of the number of miles food must be transported
to consumers. In the 1980's the Department of Energy reported that the
average food molecule travels 1,300 miles by the time it reaches the
consumer's plate. Since the 1980's the food market has been increasingly
globalized. The consumer who grows some of their own food in their
backyard reduces the number of miles traveled (energy usage) to zero.
|
|
Energy L.A. Action Plan
|
|
Residential energy conservation addresses the issue of housing
affordability by reducing the cost of utility bills. To address the issue
of citywide energy consumption, the City Council adopted the Energy LA
Action Plan in May 1982 that established 73 policies, priorities, and
programs to achieve energy conservation in new construction, existing
buildings, industry, and transportation.
|
|
The Energy L.A. Action Plan recommends conservation measures for new
residential construction including southern orientation, R-38 roof
insulation, double glazing, caulking, ventilating fans, window shading,
and mandatory standards. For existing houses, the Plan recommends R-19
ceiling insulation, reduced infiltration (caulking, weatherstripping, and
window shading), automatic thermostats, water heater blankets, low-flow
showerheads, and hot water temperature reduction. It also recommends
solar water heating systems for domestic hot water and pool heating.
|
|
The Los Angeles Building Code requires reduction of costly energy
consumption through the use of insulation, passive solar design, and
drought tolerant landscaping.
|
|
A variety of federal and state, as well as utility-sponsored, residential
energy conservation programs also act to reduce housing costs through
conservation.
|
|
CITY DEPARTMENT of WATER and POWER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
|
|
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) has implemented a
Residential Conservation Audit Program to promote efficient energy and
water use both inside and outside the home. On request, a conservation
representative visits the customer's home, evaluates water needs, and
provides written recommendations to help reduce water and energy use. A
residential loan program provides residential customers with low interest
loans for purchase of water saving devices, equipment, and services.
|
|
The DWP has also distributed over 2 million conservation kits to its
customers since 1977. These kits contain sample water saving devices that
customers can install in their toilets and showers.
|
The City Department of Water and Power (DWP) administers the following
residential energy conservation programs:
- 1) Energy Use Analysis (EUA)
-
The purpose of the EUA is to provide in-home water and energy
efficiency counseling to residential customers. DWP advises
customers to use water and electricity in non-peak hours and offers
the incentive of reduced rates to encourage customers to change the
time of use of various appliances.
- 2) Time-of-Use Consultations
-
DWP energy efficiency representatives visit the homes of residential
customers and explain to them how to take full advantage of
time-of-use rates, which offer reductions for off-peak usage.
- 3) DWP Outdoor Lighting
-
This program is designed to improve security for the business or home.
All the customer needs is a wooden DWP utility pole within 25 feet of
the property line with an appropriate voltage and DWP will install
the light for free. A very low monthly fee covers electricity,
maintenance, repairs, and replacements.
- 4) DWP Ultra-Low-Flush (ULF) Toilet Rebate Program
-
Customers can replace a non-ULF toilet with a DWP- approved ULF
toilet. Water bill savings along with the toilet rebate payment for
each toilet combines for a first-year savings of about $110 to $150
per toilet.
- 5) Common Area Analyses of Multiple-Family Complexes
-
Under this program DWP energy efficiency representatives meet with
managers and/or owners of multiple-family complexes to discuss steps
to promote energy efficiency in walkway lighting and in their common
areas, including laundry and parking areas, and recreation rooms.
- 6) Master-Meter Conversion Analyses
-
DWP will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of converting a multiple -
family facility from a master electric meter to individual meters.
- 7) Workshops and Seminars
-
DWP will develop and present energy efficiency workshops and
seminars tailored to the needs of residential customers. Principles
of energy and water efficiency are presented to apartment owners,
homeowners associations, and Neighborhood Watch groups.
(30)
Other energy conservation measures which can be taken by individual
homeowners to reduce utility bills include the purchase of recently
developed energy efficient appliances, low-energy light bulbs, and
reflective roofs which have been found to reduce energy costs by 25%.
|
|
In the last decade, many utilities across the country have switched from
using individual rebate programs to stimulate conservation to Demand Side
Management (DSM) programs. One example of a DSM program allows the
utility to affect the timing of customers' electrical usage by turning
customer equipment on and off electronically by remote control during
peak demand periods. Demand Side Management programs conserve enormous
amounts of energy which serves to delay or eliminate the need to build
costly additional facilities.
|
|
In 1992, U.S. electric utilities spent 1.3% of their total revenues on
DSM programs. In return, these programs cut annual electricity sales by
12% and peak demands by 6%.(31)
|
|
Natural Gas Conservation - Direct Assistance Program
|
|
The Southern California Gas Company is the natural gas supplier for Los
Angeles City. The Gas Company sponsors several energy conservation
programs such as the Direct Assistance Program (DAP) which provides
conservation assistance to limited income, elderly, and disabled
customers.
|
|
The Gas Company's 1997 weatherization goal is to weatherize 22,100
qualifying single- and multiple-family dwellings for eligible low-income
homeowners and renters in the entire service area (including areas
outside the City).(32) (Weatherization is
defined as the prevention of heated or cooled air losses through the
installation of insulation or other measures required in extremely hot or
cold weather to maintain comfort and prevent air losses.)
|
|
The Gas Company has contracted to provide installer and inspector
training for appliance repair and replacement of inefficient,
inoperative, and potentially hazardous gas-fired furnaces, water
heaters, and kitchen ranges.
|
|
While the residential rebate program to replace inefficient and
inoperative gas-fired furnaces, water heaters, and kitchen ranges has
been discontinued, the commercial / industrial replacement program is
still available.
|
|
The Gas Company has also established an Energy Resource Center in Downey
which is a 45,000 square foot showcase, clearinghouse, conference center,
and resource center that offers cost-effective, environmentally sensitive
solutions to energy related issues. In addition to demonstrations for
energy efficiency, the Center is also a telecommuting center and an AQMD
permit center.
|
|
Landscape Ordinance
|
|
A revised landscape ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1996 to
mitigate the environmental effects of projects (it does not address
esthetics). The main objective of this ordinance is energy conservation
through the reduction of heat and glare, water conservation, and
recycling greenwastes. For example, this ordinance establishes
requirements for the numbers of trees in parking lots and the size of
street buffers. The ordinance replaces the former xeriscape ordinance
requiring succulents and other water conserving plants. Projects covered
by this ordinance require only ministerial (not discretionary) action.
|
|
Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled
|
|
The General Plan Framework Element, establishes policies for the future
physical development of the City. The Framework Element proposes to
improve the relationship of jobs and housing through the re-planning of
commercially-zoned corridors and higher density development at transit
stations. Framework policies encourage future development in centers,
districts and along corridors that are served by public transit, as
designated in the community plans.
|
|
The guiding policies of the Citywide General Plan Framework include: a)
reduction in traffic congestion impacts and vehicle miles traveled; b)
movement toward a balance in the amount and location of commercial,
residential, and industrial development; c) stimulation of reinvestment
in economically stagnant areas of the City; and d) increased housing
development, particularly those which are affordable to very low, low and
moderate income households.
|
|
The following Framework programs implement the above policies:
|
| P-4; P-3; P-4; P-17; P-19; P-20; P-26; P-27;P-43; P-49. |
| Please refer to the Framework Element starting on page 10-1 for a
complete description of these programs.
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
|
|
To ensure that energy implications are considered in project
determinations, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
that environmental impact assessments discuss the potential energy
impacts of proposed projects. Particular emphasis is placed on avoiding
or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.
The City currently mandates environmental review for any residential
project that creates or adds more than 35 dwelling units or guest rooms.
Any potentially significant energy implications of a project are required
to be considered in an EIR and mitigation measures established.
|
|
RZ Residential Zero Side Yard Zone
|
|
Substantial energy savings can be achieved with attached housing by
reducing the total area of exterior walls. The City's Municipal Code
establishes regulations (Sec. 12.08.3) for the provision of zero-foot
side yards for single-family residential lots allowing for the
construction of dwellings across not more than five contiguous lots, with
no more than one dwelling unit on each lot. This zone allows dwelling
units to be constructed on no more than 5 contiguous lots
(Sec. 12.08.3-B.1-L.A. City Planning and Zoning Code).
|
|
California Administrative Code
|
|
The Department of Building and Safety has adopted energy conservation
building requirements in Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2-53 of the California
Administrative Code. Chapter 2-53 establishes energy efficiency standards
for heating and cooling. It mandates that any new residential buildings
shall have insulated water heating systems, ceilings, and walls. It also
sets standards for thermostats, lighting, fireplace installation, and
sizing of air conditioning equipment.
|
CHAPTER II ENDNOTES
|
Note#
|
Description
|
| 1. |
Los Angeles, Citywide General Plan Framework, June 1996 |
| 2. |
City of Los Angeles Planning Dept. Research Section |
| 3. |
Ibid., City Planning Research Section |
| 4. |
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
Vivian Doche-Boulos, Report to Community Economic and
Human Development Committee on April 6, 1995 |
| 5. |
Ibid., City Planning Research Section |
| 6. |
Ibid., City Planning, Citywide Demographics |
| 7. |
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census
(1990) Report on Housing and Population |
| 8. |
SCAG, Monthly Employment Trends, February 1996 |
| 9. |
SCAG, State of California Department of Finance,
Franchise Tax Board |
| 10. |
State of California Employment Development Division (E.D.D.) |
| 11. |
City of Los Angeles, 1996 Consolidated Plan, p. 31 |
| 12. |
L.A. Times, May 16, 1996 |
| 13. |
Ibid., 1990 U.S. Census |
| 14. |
Ibid., 1990 U.S. Census |
| 15. |
Ibid., 1990 U.S. Census |
| 16. |
SCAG Report "Selected Subregional Data on Overcrowding",
August 1993 |
| 17. |
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, 1993 |
| 18. |
Ibid., SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, 1993 |
| 19. |
City Planning Department, Citywide Demographics,
1994 Population Estimate |
| 20. |
1996 Consolidated Plan (per American Housing Survey, 1989) |
| 21. |
City of Los Angeles, Planning, Research Section, 1997 |
| 22. |
1996 Consolidated Plan (per American Housing Survey),
p. 68 1989 |
| 23. |
Ibid., 1996 Consolidated Plan, p. 34 |
| 24. |
Richard Bobb, City Attorney's Office,
telephone conversation on 6/12/96 |
| 25. |
Memo from Tom Whelan, 9/23/96 |
| 26. |
Ibid., Consolidated Plan, p. 68 |
| 27. |
Conversation with Deborah Amonson, Housing Authority of the City
of Los Angeles (HACLA), on 6/13/96 |
| 28. |
SCAG, Creating Liveable Spaces, April 1996 |
| 29. |
Sustainable Communities - A New Design Synthesis for Cities,
Suburbs, and Towns, Sim van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, p.xiv.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1986 |
| 30. |
FAX from Susan Rowghani, Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) on 10/3/95 |
| 31. |
Environment, Eric Hirst, Nov.1994, p.11 |
| 32. |
Per 4/10/97 telephone call from Denise King of The Gas Co. |
|
