RUSS REPORT - On December 19th, the Sunland Tujunga Alliance (STA) filed two appeals- a Site Plan and a Density Appeal on behalf of Samoa Avenue residents against the proposed 100% affordable housing project at 10046-10050 Samoa Avenue. The Mitigated Negative Declaration they claim, as proposed, does not adequately address the impacts of the project.
Tomi Lyn Bowling, STNC Land Use Committee (LUC) Chair, said, “There are already many apartment buildings on this street and many affordable vacancies that landlords are having trouble filling!”
The STA Appeals cite the size and cost of the project, parking shortages, and insufficient infrastructure as deficiencies not addressed by the developer, to name a few. STA says the project is in violation of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan; is not consistent with goals and policies in the Community Plan; and does not address the environmental impacts that will result from the project.
The Density appeal alleges that the Director of Planning “erred in ignoring the intent of the height requirements in the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, in ignoring the setback requirements of the Foothill Corridor Specific Plan; in approving the Front-Yard Setback incentive; erred in approving the reduction in required Open Space for the project; erred in relying on a flawed and inadequate Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which was prepared for the project; erred in not recognizing the significance of Bolton Hall to the community; erred and abused his discretion in approving the project without establishing a purpose and need for the project; and failed to find that the granting of the Density Bonus incentives will have a Specific Adverse Impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.”
The project site, which is less than an acre of ground, calls for a 44-foot high (4 story) building that exceeds the 33-foot height restriction; a 20% reduction of the front yard; a reduction in open space and a reduced number of parking spaces.
It will, primarily, house larger families in 3 and 4 bedroom units- 64 in total, and will have entrances and exits off Samoa Avenue, a narrow, substandard street with already existing parking problems and void of storm drains, curbs, gutters, or sidewalks.
The Site Plan Appeal alleges, among other things, that the Director cited the wrong Community Plan Objectives and Policies suggesting that the site is well served by mass transit and that residents of the proposed development will not have need for automobiles. Assuming that tenants will have to work, run errands, chauffeur children to school will force residents into automobiles which will ultimately increase traffic and further exacerbate parking problems in the area.
Aside from two local bus lines- morning and evening to Los Angeles, there is no other public transportation in Sunland Tujunga.
Bowling said, “The parking for the older apartments is insufficient for their buildings including a four-plex with no parking. Evenings and weekends when everyone is home, these residents have to park on adjacent streets and complain of having to walk two blocks to get to their homes. With no place to play the children play in the streets. About a year ago a little boy was badly injured after being hit by a car that was speeding down this skinny street jam packed with parked cars.”
The proposed “haul route” during the construction phase would further endanger residents, particularly children, on Samoa Avenue. According to the Site Plan review, an estimated 143 dump truck trips exporting 23,103 cubic yards of dirt will be made on Samoa to Tujunga Canyon road, where there is no stopping apparatus to enable safe left turns.
Several letters were sent to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) by the STNC and Sunland Tujunga residents expressing concerns over the pending development and the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
Sean L. Spear, Executive Director CDLAC, responded to those letters saying a design change by the developer caused additional planning action after the CDLAC had awarded the tax exempt bond allocation July 20, 2011. Spears said, “The issuer and Project sponsor have until February 17, 2012 to close on the bond financing for the project. The CDLAC Staff will continue to carefully monitor the progress of this project in the effort to insure that the bond authority is put to use as proposed in the application, and that the public benefits are delivered as required.”
Alan Gordon, Deputy Controller- CA State Controller's Office and member of the CDLAC, which approved the funding for this purported SB1818 project, chimed in on this project. He said, “To put people this far from services in an area of fairly low density development just to get this project out there just doesn’t strike me as intelligent planning.”
“This strikes me,” he continued, “in addition to many of the issues that these folks have raised, as incredible. This is sprawl development at its worst. To put people this far from services in an area of fairly low density development to stick this project out there just doesn’t strike me as intelligent planning if nothing else.”
In his October 2011 letter to Michael LoGrande (Planning Director) and Douglas Guthrie (LA Housing Department) Councilmember Paul Krekorian wrote, “This project will be developed in accordance with the provisions of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan and its associated Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. My office is committed to ensuring we can develop affordable housing in this City and in Council District 2, however my support for any and all projects, whether they be affordable housing or market rate, are that they comport with the character and aesthetics of the community and that the developers work with the community to meet the needs of local residents and mitigate adverse impacts.” So, why did the community feel the need to file two appeals?
In February 2011, Krekorian called on LAHD for their support of this project saying, “The completion of this project will meet the high demand for quality affordable housing in Los Angeles.”
The project’s February 2011 Pro Forma shows rental prices for the apartments within the project. Critics say the monthly rent is higher than other affordable units in Sunland Tujunga.
Attorney Noel Weiss believes that Krekorian is not doing his job and that there is no openness and transparency surrounding the Samoa project. “The Planning Department and his office are likely negotiating the specifics of the project behind closed doors, with the intent of ‘ramming and jamming’ it through the City Council with as little public debate and transparency as possible.” Weiss said.
“Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones made it very clear that the City must evaluate the economic feasibility of the project as it relates to whether the incentives or concessions are needed to provide the affordable housing. The same evaluation must be undertaken with regard to public health, safety, and welfare,” remarked Weiss.
Krekorian did not respond to requests for comments and questions posed remain unanswered here, and within the community.
Joe Barrett, Director- STA said, “If the developer misses the February 17th deadline, he will have to reapply or seek alternative funding for the project. We are, currently, waiting for notification of the hearing dates for the both appeals.”
Opponents feel the developer cannot meet the February 17th deadline imposed by the CDLAC and will have to begin the nearly one year long process again.
(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter. She is a regular contributor to CityWatch and to the North Valley Reporter. Katharine Russ can be reached at: [email protected] ) –cw
Tags: Russ Report, Katharine Russ, Samoa Avenue Project, Samoa Ave, Sunland-Tujunga, Neighborhood Council, Foothill Blvd Specific Plan, STNC, STA, Sunland-Tujunga Alliance
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 14
Pub: Feb 17, 2012