League of Women Voters, Los Angeles

Citizen-Sponsored Initiative, A majority vote is required for passage

1,700 of 1,700 precincts reporting (100.00%) | 2/3 of votes cast

The Question: Should the city’s ability to deny or amend certain General Plan or zoning changes be limited for residential projects of ten or more units if they provide affordable housing, comply with prevailing wage, local hiring and other labor standards, and meet other requirements?

The Situation: The City’s General Plan guides development throughout the city. California law requires that all cities and counties prepare a general plan that includes such elements as land use, open space, housing, seismic safety and public safety. Amending the General Plan involves the Planning Commission, Director of Planning, the mayor and the council. Public hearings must be held, and the mayor and council must have the opportunity to be heard. If both the mayor and the commission approve an amendment, the council may adopt it by majority vote. If the mayor and/or the
commission do not approve, the council would need a greater-than-majority vote to adopt the amendment. The council is responsible for establishing rules for granting changes to the General Plan.

The Proposal: Measure JJJ provides that nothing in the regular amendment procedure could restrict the adoption of a General Plan amendment that permits the development of a residential project of ten or more units if the project meets all of the following:

•The project is located near transit stops or other geographic requirements, or is
entirely comprised of affordable housing units.
•The project meets training, local hiring and certain wage requirements.
•The project provides a certain percentage of affordable housing and/or complies with
specified affordable housing requirements.
•Labor-related standards including a good-faith effort that at least 30 percent of all
construction worker hours be performed by permanent residents of the city, and at least
10 percent be performed by “Transitional Workers” who live in an economically
disadvantaged area within a five-mile radius of the project site, and are otherwise
disadvantaged in one of several ways, including being homeless or lacking a GED or
high school diploma.

This measure also would limit the city’s ability to reduce the number of community plans or make changes to their geographical boundaries, land uses, or other material changes without the Planning Department and Planning Commission reviewing these changes and their impact on the creation and preservation of affordable housing. With the exception of affordable housing developments of 25 units or less, housing projects receiving funds from the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund would be
required to meet prevailing wage requirements, and there would be an affordable housing incentive program with increased density and reduced parking requirements for projects within a one-half mile radius around a major transit stop.

Financial Impact: This measure is not expected to result in any additional cost to the city or to taxpayers.

Supporters say:

This measure ensures that developers who ask the city for special planning or zoning changes will have to follow strict requirements for affordability, and that 30 percent of the jobs building affordable housing will go to people in Los Angeles who need the jobs most. It will produce more affordable housing without relying on taxpayer funding.

Opponents say:
This measure is deeply flawed, does not produce new jobs and will not increase the availability or affordability of housing. This is the wrong approach, because it will drive up rental costs, make homes more unaffordable for first-time buyers, add delays and red tape to the construction of needed housing, and increase construction costs.

Signers of Arguments in Favor: Alton Wilkerson, Electrician; Rusty Hicks, Veteran; Ronald Miller, Plumber; Angella Gains, Renter; Josefina Castillo, First-time home buyer.

Signers of Arguments Against: Tim Plasky, Coalition for Jobs and Attainable Housing; Beverly A. Kenworthy, California Apartment Association; Carol Schatz, Central City Association, Gary Toebben, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Stuart Waldman, Valley Industry & Commerce Association; Mike Balsam, Building Industry Association of Southern California.

A YES Vote means:: You want to limit the city’s ability to deny or amend General Plan
amendments for certain residential projects of ten or more units that provide affordable
housing and meet training, local hiring, prevailing wage and other requirements.

A NO Vote means: You do not want to limit the city in this way.