LA City Council rejects 5,500-home Las Lomas project

Here's a surprising piece of news -- The city of Los Angeles has actually found a housing development it doesn't like. True, the City Council had to go outside city limits to find a development it wouldn't rubber stamp, but it did: "A divided Los Angeles City Council voted today to halt its review of the 5,553-home project known as Las Lomas, dealing a devastating blow to the company that had spent six years trying to get a hearing for the mega-development planned for north Los Angeles County.

More: "In a sign that even Los Angeles has limits on the amount of growth it will approve, the council voted 10 to 5 to instruct the Planning Department to stop processing the application submitted in 2002 by the Las Lomas Land Co."

Proof that I will never understand Los Angeles politics: I am so naive that I thought it was weird the City Council was even discussing a development that is not inside the city limits. Where I come from, local governments generally concern themselves with issues within their borders. But as I say, the realities of L.A. politics are lost on me.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com
Photo Credit: LATimes

Comments

[Patrick Duffy, HousingChronicles.com]

Last week at a building industry event, a division manager for a public homebuilder expressed frustration with spending tens of thousands of dollars for a display ad with the L.A. Times only to feel pilloried by its writers in various articles. I explained to him that I thought the Times did a better-than-average job of presenting both sides to an issue, but if today's article by David Zahniser is any indication of an editorial slant at the paper, perhaps I was premature in my defense.

First, there's the somewhat gleeful title: "L.A. City Council Rejects Massive Las Lomas Development"

Was the word "massive" really necessary?

Massive to whom -- the headline writer who hates growth and doesn't want to see anymore of it? Massive to a staff writer who lives in Santa Clarita and already hates the morning commute?

I get it -- traffic to/from the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley areas at rush hour is truly horrible, but people will continue to move to California regardless of how we decide to house them. New development should require traffic improvements, and Las Lomas' location adjacent to the 5 and 14 freeways would certainly make it a contributor to more of it, but is the solution really to decry "rich developers" and stomp on the ground and scream "no?" If it doesn't work in the long-run for toddlers, why would it work now?

Here's the weird thing about traffic: the further out the sprawl goes, the worse it gets in the city because its effects are cumulative -- it feeds on itself, so although people hate density, from a regional standpoint density in the right places improves overall traffic flow. But what are the chances of seeing that type of information from Mr. Zahniser? I'd say close to zero.

Here's the section that surprised me by passing the Times' multi-leveled editorial process:

In a sign that even Los Angeles has limits on the amount of growth it will approve, the council voted 10 to 5 to instruct the Planning Department to stop processing the application submitted in 2002 by the Las Lomas Land Co.

The vote represented a huge victory for Councilman Greig Smith, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley. Smith had argued that the council had no need to review a project that would flood the region with traffic and yet is outside the city limits.

"This project would have put 15,000 cars a day in an already heavily impacted area," Smith said after the vote. "The people of L.A. said we can't take that anymore. We're tired of it. We don't have to say yes to make a developer rich."

Do any of these guys read their own paper?? Newsflash, guys -- developers and builders aren't rich these days -- in fact, many will likely go out of business between now and 2010. I can hear the cheering already -- until, of course, you realize that when the same number of people move in and fewer homes are built, rents and home prices go up and density increases in places where it shouldn't -- such as single-family neighborhoods.

The article's obvious subjectivity continues:

Even defenders of Las Lomas said they did not like the project, which would have brought a small city to a sprawling hillside just north of the interchange of the 5 and 14 freeways. Instead, they argued that the city already had made a promise to review the project -- and that stopping now would leave Los Angeles vulnerable in court.

Today's vote delivered the council's most direct repudiation of a major developer since 2003, when it sued to stop the 3,050-home development known as Ahmanson Ranch, a project in Ventura County.

Within the city's borders, the council in recent years has approved more than 5,800 homes at Playa Vista, just north of Westchester, and more than 2,500 homes in Hollywood in the area along Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street.

Translation: wow, that's a lot of homes, which just means more traffic! But that's the simple, unexamined version. Never mind that Playa Vista was years in planning and represents one of the most-awarded urban-oriented master-planned communities in the country. And the renaissance of Hollywood -- with its 2,500 new homes approved -- will ultimately HELP traffic in outlying areas by offering alternatives to professionals working in downtown, who are among its largest group of buyers. But did anyone at the Times talk to a traffic expert? Nope -- experts aren't needed when there's an agenda.

In an attempt at 'balance,' the story does quote Dan Palmer with Las Lomas Land Co. with one of the blandest, most insipid responses they could print:

Dan Palmer, the president of Las Lomas Land Co., voiced disappointment in the council's decision, saying his company has not decided its next move.

"We believe that Las Lomas is a fine project providing many benefits to the community, and we remain committed to it," he said.

Yah, and he loves his kids and goes to church every Sunday, too.

I'm sure Mr. Palmer was more eloquent in his remarks, but with such an obviously one-sided story there was simply no room for argument.

[the dude]

Las Lomas had hoped to have the property annexed into the City of LA, hence the submission of the application to City Planning Department.

I find it strange that the City Council can instruct the Planning Department to stop processing an application prior to the applicant actually having its hearing on the merits. That strikes me as a denial of due process.

[Mark]

I totally agree with Patrick Duffy's comments. What a shame that political correctness has won out over practicality. I guess if you want even more crowded neighborhoods and housing prices that remain high, you're happy with today's decision from the City Council.

[Michael Snyder]

Peter,
Did you say, "Realities of Los Angeles politics"? How oxymoronic of you! No worries though; your inability to make a connection between reality and politics in Los Angeles is a good thing.

[mickey malone]

Didnt we have to vote on annexing the property before something is built on ?. Did the Mayor and his cronnies "annex" the county property; as just a way to get money for taxes, and taxes for telephones and electric, gas, water, property tax, etc.to keep them fed with wine and travel and $400 haircuts?

[Chris]

I'm frankly glad to hear this. If southern CA continues to grow as it has over the past 15-20 years, the region by mid century will look from space like one big slab of concrete. Who cares whether or not developers are getting rich, or whether or not they've got clever ad-hominem arguments against people who oppose them - we need a time-out from development!

[Uncle Billy]

This thing was funky from the start.

http://tinyurl.com/2mvnej

The developer submitted paperwork to the county that reflects he is the owner of the parcels when in fact he owns only half of them (the other half owned by an elderly gentleman).

Plus, um, why try to push this thing through right in the middle of the largest housing crash of all time?

Does this mean that you need more than a county supervisor in your pocket to get your project done?

Bottom line... who needs it.

[peter m]

" The city of Los Angeles has actually found a housing development it doesn't like. True, the City Council had to go outside city limits to find a development it wouldn't rubber stamp, but it did: "

The city council/ la civic leaders approve almost every development within LA city limits. It seems odd that they would be concerned with a development i n San ta clarita which really has no bearing on LA City . The concerns about increased traffi c volume along the choked 5 and 14 fwys is really a concern for LA County/Cal Trans and the Santa Clarita Valley.
There is est 250,000-300,000 homes in the entire region of SC, palmcaster, newhall, canyon country, ect. so adding another 5000+ units would have little impact.
Why not ask this developer to expand and improve the alternate side road route sierra hwy/old sepulveda rd/ san fernando rd which could be widened and used as a reliable all-weather bypass rte around the 5/14 split. That area BTW seems of little use for open space preservation and constantly looks like a barren recently scorched blackened hillside.

Putting 5000 new homes there would have little impact on area environment and traffic flows. 5/14 rte is really, really bad only in severe weather or friday afternoons and these 5000+ homes would have little impact on current normal traffic volumes.
Am not an advocate for more new housing developments anywhere but it seems that the city council is patting itself on the head over a development which it really has no business intrudng in. This is a issue for Santa Clarita Voters and LA Regional County /state of Cal depts.

[Booyah!]

Sorry builders (in general).

The bubble you ALL contributed to has popped.

Go cry on your own blogs.

[jaded]

regarding Patrick Duffy's incredulity that the LA Times would use the word "massive" when describing a proposed development of over 5,500 homes:

if 5,500 homes (and at least 12,000 people) is not "massive," then what is? 10,000 homes and 30,000 people? 20,000 homes? Do you think this is the LA of the 1950s with seemingly unlimited open space?

it's a specious argument to say that if we just keep building, building, building, the net effect will be to keep housing prices down. Well, it didn't work with the last round of new homes during the bubble, did it?

[RadioManTodd]

TV's Patrick Duffy is commenting on our little blog??? How honored we should all be!!!!

LA City was right to take the action, because first and foremost, they have no right to annex the land. It is not physically adjacent to the city of Los Angeles. Therefore they have no right to annex the property.

This whole deal is shady from day 1. As pointed out the developer does not currently own all the land they are proposing to build on. Secondly, the developer has been shopping around trying to find a body that would approve the deal. When the County Supervisors said no, he tried to annex into Santa Clarita. When they said no, he's now gone to LA City.

[Bryan T]

I can't believe that builders are on here to complain that their enormous urban sprawl project hasn't been approved.

I'm tired of tax dollars being used to provide infrastructure to developers (or the development just being built without it, with the predictable problems that result). Developers think that profits are private, but infrastructure costs and urban sprawl are a cost to be paid for by everyone else.

Build those 5,000 units near existing rail lines, subways, schools, and utilities instead.

[Andrew Z]

I work for a big homebuilder and a 5,000 home project is massive.

I'm just sayin'.

And for all those who tell builders to go cry somewhere else or we don't need new construction or development you have to realize that construction provides a lot of good paying jobs, health care, and really does provide a lot of positives to the community. We help build roads, schools, fire stations, etc. out of our own pockets and I can't say that there are many other industries that do that much just so they can conduct business.

I understand and agree that overbuilding attributed to the current housing meltdown, but it's important to note that when building and re-building stops our cities and economies are in much deeper trouble than just a housing bubble.

[tony]

#1 - Playa Vista is a DISASTER. It is ass-ugly, and looks half finished as you go inland. If I was a rich billionaire, I would burn it to the ground and restore the green open space that was there in the first place.

#2 - I believe the population of California is shrinking, not growing due to the high cost of housing.

Sorry, Mr. Duffy. There is no need for 5,000 more homes. Sell the ones you have first.

[Lou]

100 bucks says that in a couple of years all these nice new communities in the Southland will become prime gang territory, Houses built right on top of each other with no yards, it's high density housing on a grander scale. Las Lomas would have become Sylmar-Pacoima North if it were built.

[Patrick Duffy, HousingChronicles.com]

A correction: 5,000 homes is certainly 'massive' in terms of a single development, but in terms of a master-planned community (MPC) it's about average, and I should have stated as such. In MPC terms, 20,000 homes would certainly be massive.

While we don't need 5,000 homes more homes now -- yes, I read the paper, too -- we will when the market rebounds and the people who continued to move here contribute the pent-up demand for housing also increased by people here who tend to have babies and raise families. So how do we stop that -- big walls at the county borders and put birth control in the water supply?

I'm actually a huge fan of transit-oriented developments that promote higher densities while reducing reliance on cars, but so far they've not been very popular here in SoCal. I've written an article for builders supporting that type of development; I'm happy to email anyone a .pdf copy upon request or it's available on my website.

As far as your tax dollars for infrastructure, in many cases it's the new homeowners who shoulder that burden through Community Facilities Districts that exact additional taxes -- sometimes doubling the overall tax bill for the borrower. In the long run, those higher taxes paid by the new homeowners will ultimately benefit the larger population with more schools, parks, and roads. If you already live in a built-out area with all of those amenities with a lower tax rate (as I do), consider yourself lucky.

Finally, homebuilders and their staffs aren't alien creatures from Mars, and yet they tend to be treated as such (no I am NOT a homebuilder and I do not sell homes, I provide information to and consult with builders to help them gauge market trends). While part of that is due to their own sometimes-misguided PR efforts, most of it is because most people don't understand how new communities are built, which is why blogs like this are so important.

I'm a proud 7th-generation Californian, and when my ancestors received their land grants in the counties of Riverside and Orange in the late 1700's I can assure you there was virtually no development at all. But growth and change is inevitable, and only by working WITH the development community in a rational manner -- such as sitting on community planning groups and voicing your opinion -- can anyone hope to ensure that any large development meets the demand for new housing (when it occurs) while minimizing its impact.

And no, I'm not the actor, but the name does come in handy when calling in restaurant reservations!

[the fat and the furious]

"Why not ask this developer to expand and improve the alternate side road route sierra hwy/old sepulveda rd/ san fernando rd which could be widened and used as a reliable all-weather bypass rte around the 5/14 split. That area BTW seems of little use for open space preservation and constantly looks like a barren recently scorched blackened hillside."

The developer already offered that:

from their website:
http://www.laslomas.com/en/traffic

The Las Lomas project includes a $150 million Transportation Mitigation Program that includes the following major elements:

Las Lomas will create and pay for a continuous four-lane roadway parallel to the I-5 through the following projects, which are all listed by LADOT as Potential Transportation Improvement Projects for which the funding is not currently available:

Widening of The Old Road to four lanes, with median turn lanes, including the replacement of one of the I-5 truck lane bridges over The Old Road, which creates a current bottleneck.
Widening of the Sierra Highway connection between The Old Road and San Fernando Road to six lanes.
Widening of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the I-5 between Sierra Highway and Balboa Boulevard .
Widening Sepulveda Boulevard to four lanes between San Fernando Road and Roxford Street .
Constructing a new four-lane road on the west side of the I-5 along DWP property, extending Sepulveda Boulevard and connecting Roxford Street to Rinaldi Street . This new four-lane parallel roadway will provide significant relief to the I-5 corridor on typical days and will constitute a much-needed alternate route during emergency situations. It will also create an alternative to the use of Balboa Boulevard .

In addition to the off-site transportation improvement program, Las Lomas' mixed-use environment includes a blend of residential options, commercial office space with significant employment opportunities, a marquis hotel, retail, and municipal and school facilities, that will keep many of the project vehicular trips confined to the internal circulation system.

Las Lomas will utilize internal transit shuttles and encourage walking and the use of bicycles for mobility. The Las Lomas community will also purchase commuter buses (to be operated by LADOT as Commuter Express routes or Metro as Rapid Buses) connecting Las Lomas to Warner Center, the North Hollywood Metro Red Line and major residential and employment sites in the San Fernando Valley.

Las Lomas' focus on reducing traffic congestion in the Northwest San Fernando Valley by providing a $150 million transportation improvement package will help lessen the daily challenges faced by regional commuters, while the smart growth principles that serve as the foundation of the Las Lomas development will provide cohesive internal transportation and reduce the project impact on the local and regional transportation system.

[the fat and the furious]

'#2 - I believe the population of California is shrinking, not growing due to the high cost of housing.

Sorry, Mr. Duffy. There is no need for 5,000 more homes. Sell the ones you have first.'

umm, no.

from SCAG's 2007 State of the Region report, see below.

while the growth rate may be slowing, the population is still growing.

and contrary to popular belief, it's not because of massive immigration. more than half is just people having babies.

Growth Characteristics
During the year 2006, the SCAG region added 213,000 residents, reaching
a total of 18.5 million. This represents close to half of the population
in the state and over 6 percent in the nation (Figure 1). Since the April
2000 Census, population in the region has increased by almost 2 million
(or 12 percent). However, after achieving its largest annual increase
in 2001 of approximately 350,000, population growth in the region has
been slowing. The SCAG region has more population than any state in
the nation with the exceptions of California, Texas and New York.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census, and California Department of Finance
2005 Increase 2006 Increase
Population Increase: 2005 and 2006 (Thousands)
Since 1990, annual population growth in the region has varied significantly
(Figure 2).1 Average annual growth dropped from about 300,000
in 1991 to about 70,000 in 1995 due to the severe recesion, and then
resumed accelerated growth to reach 350,000 in 2001. Since 2001,
despite a generally stable natural increase (births over deaths) of approximately
164,000 per year, total population growth in the region
has been reduced from about 350,000 (over 2 percent growth rate)
to about 220,000 (1.2 percent) per year. Specifically, between 2001
and 2006, the net foreign immigration into the region dropped from
about 157,000 to 115,000. This is consistent with the trend that recent
immigrants are becoming a little more dispersed throughout the
nation and are increasingly less concentrated in historical gateway regions
particularly Southern California. During the same period, domestic
migration also decreased from about 33,000 net in-migration in
2001 to 62,000 net outmigation in 2006, i.e., there were 62,000 more
people moving out of Southern California to the rest of the nation in
2006 than vice versa.
The reversal in domestic migration occurred when the job market in
the region was actually improving and performing a little better than
the rest of the nation (as discussed in the Employment Section). The
turnaround in domestic migration could be due to the widening gap
of cost of living between the region and the rest of the nation, and
the overall economic recovery in the rest of the nation. For example