1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Comment on Item 10.D: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Allow 100% Affordable Housing Projects to Request Additional Reductions of Development Standards Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
EXTERNAL
This comment concerns item 10.D, the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Allow 100% Affordable Housing Projects to Request Additional Reductions of Development Standards Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
The specific development standard element addressed by this comment is the potential reduction and/or abolition of parking requirements.
I would like to remind this Council that abolition of parking has zero impact on the need for full and timely access to the entire transportation network. That access is only provided by private transportation, i.e. cars. Abolition of a minimum 1:1 parking in residential buildings simply erects barriers to the access to cars, and to the unparalleled transportation utility that they provide.
As a point of personal reference, I lived in London for eight years without the need for a car. I have lived experience with the transit capabilities that are required to achieve an effective fully integrated multi-modal transit that eliminates the need for a car.
Issue
To date, multiple affordable housing projects are in process or have been approved with less than 1:1 parking [a], with some having zero parking [b & c]. The cited examples are not fully inclusive. These defective projects currently constitute a clear violation of the state’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. These AFFH requirements were specifically noted in SCAG’s Objectives of RHNA. In Point 2 of Objective 5, SCAG notes:
Item 10.D
12/13/22
1 of 5 Item 10.D
12/13/22
2 “…affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions…that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” [d] Providing less than 1:1 parking in any building creates de facto barriers to opportunity for the residents of that building.
Since there can be no discrimination based on protected characteristics, and since there is no ability to know which buildings will house residents that belong to groups with protected characteristics over the buildings’ useful lives, every building must meet AFFH requirements.
To the argument that eliminating parking allows more units to be built, the obvious defect in that logic is that 100% of a building’s residents are immediately and significantly disadvantaged for the addition of a fractional increase in total units. Those tradeoffs are indefensible.
Severity of the Issue
The nature of this violation is so egregious as to constitute a particularly pernicious form of contemporary government-sponsored housing discrimination.
The potential scope of the issue is multiplied by the fact that these development standard waivers would disproportionately impact maximum density buildings where the number of those needing full and unfettered access to the entire transportation network is the greatest in relation to the total building units.
The value of private transportation access to the socio-economic demographics that are to qualify for these buildings cannot be overstated.
Wendell Cox has noted that in Los Angeles, access to private transportation increases access to job opportunities by a factor of 34x over those limited to public transportation.
In a comprehensive 2018 SCAG/UCLA study of transit ridership, key conclusions of the authors noted regarding the value of access to private transportation included [e]:
• A small but persuasive literature on personal consumption shows that poorer people tend to convert even small increases in income into vehicle purchases – a testament to how valuable vehicle access can be (p65)
Item 10.D
12/13/22
2 of 5 Item 10.D
12/13/22
3 • “…some Southern Californians – the poorest of them – drive too little, and both their lives and the region as a whole would be improved if they drove a bit more. The low-income person who acquires a vehicle often makes fewer trips than an affluent person (driving is expensive) and the trips they make are often essential, and have social benefits that exceed their social costs. (p68)
• A car trip by a low-income household is more likely than one by an affluent household to involve finding and keeping work, getting to school, or accessing better health and daycare options. These trips might modestly increase congestion and pollution, but they have large paybacks in employment, earnings, and overall well-being that exceed those costs. (p68) • “…the powerful difference a car can make in the lives of low-income people…” (p68) That same report noted in respect to mass transit:
• While most regular transit users lack vehicle access, most people without vehicle access do not regularly use transit, in part because transit is unavailable in many places. (p25) • Falling speeds slow travel times, and if operators do not counteract falling speed by adding more vehicles, then headways (the time between vehicle arrivals at a stop) will rise. Rising headways make transit less attractive by increasing average wait times at stops and lengthening the times of transfers among vehicles. (p41) Separately, the 2019 strategic plan for the LA Metro bus system listed as a key GOAL (not the reality) having bus trips take no more than 2.5x the amount of time of private transportation [f].
In Santa Monica, the BBB noted that a reasonable travel time for a bus trip is the same as a person’s current mode plus or minus 25 percent(!). [g] But the BBB fails to state its performance against such a standard. Perhaps that’s because it cannot figure it out.
A BBB public records request last December returned the result that the BBB has no idea how many route miles are within the city limits. [h]
Conclusions
The abject non-competitiveness of public vs private transportation today is arguably the most significant barriers to opportunity for the affordable housing demographic that exists today. And, there is no guarantee that mass transit will not shrink, let alone expand, with the Item 10.D
12/13/22
3 of 5 Item 10.D
12/13/22
4 ongoing collapse in ridership and the deteriorating financial situation of bus systems, including the BBB.
The focus on in-building parking degradation / elimination in affordable housing projects disproportionately impacts the socio-economic groups that are most in need of maximal unfettered access to opportunity.
In the perverse approval structure that is being proposed, whatever benefit reduced rent would provide would more than likely be entirely offset by the severe constriction in access to opportunity that newly erected barriers to full and timely access to entire transportation network creates. Effectively, we are talking about extending a helping hand while kicking the stool out from under that same recipient.
Moreover, with the looming ban on ICE vehicles, the BEV replacements will only be viable with at-home charging. Elimination of in-building parking requirements permanently precludes access to that transportation utility for decades to come since on-street parking will never have sufficient charging capacity in a city dominated by dense multi-family buildings.
Only when true parity in transportation utility between public and private modes is achieved can a ratio of parking of less than 1:1 even be considered.
The Council’s Choice
To the extent that an attempt is made to justify this discriminatory policy based on recent state laws, the Council should remember that AFFH is a Federal HUD requirement. [i] This Council should file for declaratory relief to disregard state laws that ban parking minimums under federal law.
If this council does not prohibit the practice of less than 1:1 parking, it will be complicit in furthering pernicious and multi-generational housing discrimination. It will also clarify once and for all the true depth of cynicism that resides behind the “values” narrative that has been spun from this chamber for years.
Respectfully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Item 10.D
12/13/22
4 of 5 Item 10.D
12/13/22
5 References
[a] 2120 Lincoln at 37 Units & 24%
[b] 1215 19th St at 34 units & zero parking (pending Admin Approval 06-30-2022) [c] 1333 7th St. at 38 units & zero parking (pending Admin Approval 06-30-2022) [d] Final RHNA Allocation Methodology 03-05-2020 (Page 19 of 32) https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/scag-final-rhna-methodology030520.pdf?1602189316 [e] Falling Transit Ridership: California and Southern California – SCAG and the Institute for Transportation Studies at UCLA (Jan 2018)
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/its_scag_transit_ridership.pdf [f] LA Metro NextGen Bus Plan (Nov 2019), Slide 11.
https://investinginplace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Metro.November2019.NextGen.pdf [g] Strategies to Increase Big Blue Bus Ridership by Improving Travel Times SMCC Meeting 12-10-2019, Agenda Item: 8.B
http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame&MeetingID=1198&MediaPosition&ID=3490&CssClass [h] BBB Public Records Request R014296-122321 - Response 12-29-2021 [i] US Dept of Housing & Urban Development
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
https://www.hud.gov/AFFH
“The obligation to affirmatively further fair housing requires recipients of HUD funds to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics, which are:
• Race
• Color
• National origin
• Religion
• Sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation) • Familial status
• Disability
Item 10.D
12/13/22
5 of 5 Item 10.D
12/13/22