Update May 7 2017
Lots of new projects in the Pico-Fairfax area
Los Angeles- On April 27, 2017 the land use committee of the Pico Neighborhood council met at the Claude Pepper senior center 90035.
Picfair used to be predominately Black
“Picfair Village is primarily a middle-income area with a moderate African-American majority. Per the U.S. Census of 2000, racial representation is approximately 50% African-American, 20% non-Latino white, 25% Latino of any race, and 5% Asian/Pacific Islander. Median household income is in the area of $45,000.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picfair_Village,_Los_Angeles
“As mentioned earlier, the area just south of Pico, but north of Saturn Street, has a mix of homes and 2 and 4 plexes. South of Pickford, you will find it is mostly single family residential homes. Another interesting feature of this neighborhood: The homes on the North/South Street tend to be all full size lots (5,000 – 6000 sq. ft.), while homes on the east/west streets tend to be bungalow (smaller) size lots.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picfair_Village,_Los_Angeles
Seventeen years later as gentrification rushes in, we see many of the older African American homeowners relocate or sell their homes.
The land use meeting on April 27 was a mix of nationalities but many of those who spoke against the increased density and parking problems were African American homeowners. It was interesting to see Blacks also sitting on the land use committee, as the powers that be seemed to be pitting Black against Black.
I personally think the meetings—-as with most government meetings—-are for show and most real business takes place outside the confines of the meetings. Sometimes the best way to get things done is to disrupt the meeting. The agenda seemed designed to make sure most of the issues would not be adequately addressed.
Some of the planners claimed to have made modifications in plans in response to resident concerns, but some residents disagreed that any concerns had been addressed. Many complaints centered on project scale and height, negative impact on traffic [space is a premium in Los Angeles so who gives a damn about traffic?], insufficient onsite parking, loss of affordable housing, impact on local infrastructure; pollution, noise, congestion [certainly the developers who don’t live in these neighborhoods don’t care about that]. When a construction project begins, twenty or more street parking spaces will be lost and never replaced.
Some of the projects were allowed reduced parking in the belief that less people are driving and more are taking mass transit. The problem is that such surveys do not seem to account for the increase in car sales, especially to those newly entering the country. It seems strange to build up up up and increase density and think that there will be less cars yet more people. Or take out 100 parking spaces and only replace with 25. Some residents complained that even though some projects will be on a commercial street, cars of business customers and neighbors guests will end up impacting the side residential streets. [Can you say parking permits?] It seems the planners are working on a block by block basis without considering trying to achieve a global strategy to lessen the impact on traffic citywide. Like there is no coordinated planning. And no one knows what “affordable” housing means: affordable to who? Some of the projects get leeway by having a few low income units. A few.
What is very low income?
“Since these limits fluctuate, depending on the number of family members involved. LA Curbed reported that “a single person making less than $31,550 would be considered very-low income, whereas a family of six making $32,960 would be classified as extremely low-income.” http://www.canyon-news.com/los-angeles-new-low-income-requirements/67534
[I visited one income based complex where the maximum very low income was about $35,880 per year to qualify for $952 /month rent one bedroom but your minimum income required was $1500 per month/$18,000 per year. In many cases, social security payments alone probably would not cover that. In 2016 Housing Authority County Los Angeles 2016 limits were extremely low $18,250.00; very low $30,400, low income $48,650, median income $62,400.]
5047-5046 W Pico Blvd. at Sycamore. 65 unit mixed use including 6 units for very low income. 64 parking spaces (60 residential and 4 commercial). [I don’t understand what is 4 commercial stalls good for?]
6116-6144 W Pico Blvd. 49 unit apartment complex. 63 parking spaces (49 residential, 14 commercial)
1545 S. Fairfax Avenue. 10 unit apartment building. 1 very low income unit.
1444-1448 S Hi Point. 5 unit small lot subdivision.
5835-5839 W. Pico Blvd/1355 S. Orange Grove. 28 unit mixed use [3 unit for very low income].
6001-6011 W. Pico Blvd (at Stearns). 48 unit mixed use (5 units for very low income).
1056-1066 S La Cienega Blvd 90 unit apartment building (8 very low income).
Land Use Committee members include:
Traci Considine, Sue Beidleman, Brad Kane, David Dahlke, Sharon Montrose, Marilouise Morgan, Jeffrey Pearlman, Susan Sanford, Yvonne Smith, Alma Stent, Mary Ann Yurkonis
Other News: City Corruption: Garcetti and Galardi Admit City Employees did not follow due process procedures for THP renovations
City procedures re tenant habitability applications
Robert Galardi, city employee, while admitting in a May 6 2017 letter that THP due process requirements were not followed by city employees involving numerous tenants, refused to explain which employees were involved, how much money tenants were cheated out of.
LAMC SEC. 152.07. REMEDIES.
(Added by Ord. No. 176,544, Eff. 5/2/05.)
A. A landlord who fails to abide by the terms of an accepted Tenant Habitability Plan shall be denied individual rent adjustments under Section 151.07 A.1.(d) of this Code, absent extenuating circumstances.
C. Any person who willfully or knowingly with the intent to deceive, makes a false statement or representation, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact in any plan or notice required under this article, or in any declaration, application, hearing or appeal permitted under this article, including oral or written evidence presented in support thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six months or both. Each violation of any provision of this chapter and each day during which such violation is committed, or continues, shall constitute a separate offense.
Double and treble damages required against city employees and property owners
E. Any person who breaches any duty or obligation set forth in Section 152.06 of this Code shall be liable in a civil action by any person, organization or entity, for all actual damages, special damages in an amount not to exceed the greater of twice the amount of actual damages or $5,000, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court. Damages of three times the amount of the actual damages may be awarded in a civil action for willful failure to comply with the payment obligations, to provide safe, decent and sanitary temporary replacement housing, or to allow a tenant to reoccupy a rental unit once the primary work is completed.
[This section appears to make the owner as well as city employees liable for complying with the THP requirements and its due process as well as monetary payout requirements.]