Executive 4 · Executive Summary Summary 9 ·Project Brief & Methodology 9 · Framework 9 · Origins 9 · Goals 10 · Objectives 11 · LA-Más Position 12 · Research Methodology 12 · Groundwork 12 · Interviews 12 · Advisory Teams 13 · Engagement 13 · Workshops 14 · Outreach Approach 15 · Participant Turnout 15 · Commenting Period
Project Brief & Methodology
17 ·The Context 17 · Recent History of Development 18 · What are the Q Conditions? 20 · Neighborhood Council Advocacy
The Context
REPORT 22 · Findings 24 · Creative Class, Working Class, and ‘Makers’ 26 · Gentrification and Displacement 28 · In Favor of Adaptive Reuse 29 · Contradictions: Affordable Housing without Density 30 · Call for Legitimization 31 · Infrastructure and Amenities
Findings
32 · Potential Strategies 34 · Strategy 1: Q Conditions Plus More 36 · Strategy 2: Alternative Affordability 38 · Strategy 3: Formalizing the Informal 40 · Strategy 4: Building Infrastructure 42 · Strategy 5: Community Connections
Potential Strategies
44 · Conclusion Conclusion 46 · Community Checklist 48 · Appendix 50 · Participating Organizations 52 · Urban Planning & Related Definitions 54 · Workshop Highlights 56 · References
Appendix
Acknowledgements The LA Más team acknowledges everyone who has made this project possible, collaborative, and meaningful.
PROJECT FUNDERS Julia Meltzer & David Thorne
LA-MÁS PROJECT TEAM Maria Lamadrid (Co-Lead), Helen Leung (Co-Lead), Elizabeth Timme, Ross Hansen, Stacey Rigley PROJECT CONSULTANT Mott Smith, Civic Enterprise
WORKSHOP HOSTS, FACILITATORS, AND PARTNERS Workshop 1 - Cyndi Hubach, Steve Graziani, Ceci Dominguez, David Dedlow Workshop 2 - Tracy Stone, Allen Anderson, Art Yanez, Tacos by George (pseudonym) Workshop 3 - David Dedlow, Edwina Dedlow Workshop 4 - Ron Gonen, Robert de Forest Workshop 5 - David De La Torre, Max Kanter Workshop 6 - Steve Zimmer, Craig Weber, Steve Appleton
STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mike Dennis, East Los Angeles Community Corporation Rudy Espinoza, Leadership for Urban Renewal Elizabeth Falleta, USC Price School of Public Policy Miranda Rodriguez, LA River Corporation
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD David De La Torre, Elysian Valley Neighborhood Watch Ceci Dominguez, Elysian Valley Senior Center Tracy Stone, Elysian Valley Arts Collective Cyndi Hubach, Elysian Valley Community Garden Daniel Paredes, Elysian Valley Riverside Neighborhood Council Steve Zimmer, Elysian Valley United David Dedlow, Framatic Rick Cortez & Kevin Mulcahy, RAC Design Build Art Yanez, fsy Architects Ron Gonen & Robert De Forest, Tierra River LLC
INTERVIEWS Theresa Hwang, Director of Community Design & Planning, Skid Row Housing Trust Marie Rumsey, former Planning Director for Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell Jill Sourial, former River & Environment Deputy for Councilmember Ed Reyes Daniel Tellalian, Director of Emerging Markets, Inc. George Villanueva, Project Manager for Northeast LA Riverfront Collaborative Valerie Watson, former Urban Designer at Melendrez Rosten Woo, cultural producer and former Director at Center for Urban Pedagogy Interviews were also provided by members of the Advisory teams.
UNOFFICIAL PROJECT TEAM Printing support - Maximilian Brenner & Vivian Chaing (RAC Design Build) Copy-editing - Cameron Robertson & Nikki Polizzotto (LA-Más Fellows) Research & workshop support - Sharon Velasquez (LA-Más Fellow) Outreach & workshop support - Armando Rivas (LA-Más Citizen Science Apprentice) Photographer & workshop set up - Robert Berg (Elysian Valley neighbor)
CONTENTS 4·Executive Summary 9·Project Brief & Methodology 9 · Framework 9 · Origins 9 · Goals 10 · Objectives 11 · LA-Más Position 12 · Research Methodology 12 · Groundwork 12 · Interviews 12 · Advisory Teams 13 · Engagement 13 · Workshops 14 · Outreach Approach 15 · Participant Turnout 15 · Commenting Period
17·The Context 17 · Recent History of Development 18 · What are the Q Conditions? 20 · Neighborhood Council Advocacy
22·Findings 24 · Finding 1: Creative Class, Working Class, and ‘Makers’ 26 · Finding 2: Gentrification and Displacement 28 · Finding 3: In Favor of Adaptive Reuse 29 · Finding 4: Contradictions: Affordable Housing without Density 30 · Finding 5: Call for Legitimization 31 · Finding 6: Infrastructure and Amenities
32·Potential Strategies 34 · Strategy 1: Q Conditions Plus More 36 · Strategy 2: Alternative Affordability 38 · Strategy 3: Formalizing the Informal 40 · Strategy 4: Building Infrastructure 42 · Strategy 5: Community Connections
44·Conclusion 46 · Community Checklist
48·Appendix 50 · Participating Organizations 52 · Urban Planning & Related Definitions 54 · Workshop Highlights 56 · References
5
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
Background
Executive Summary
Why now?
What do you hope to achieve?
How did we go about it?
The Futuro de Frogtown project was commissioned by two active stakeholders of Elysian Valley – Julia Meltzer, founder and director of the non-profit arts organization Clockshop, and David Thorne, the creative director of Elysian, a restaurant and private event venue. LA-Más, also referred to as “we” in this document, is a non-profit community design organization located in the Elysian Valley, and we spearheaded the development and implementation of the project. As the facilitators of this project, we attempted to convene diverse perspectives with a focus on ensuring that voices not often present in efforts like this are heard. Market forces coupled with investments to revitalize the Los Angeles River have induced development pressures in Elysian Valley, better known as Frogtown. This workingclass community, directly adjacent to the L.A. River within northeast Los Angeles, is becoming an increasingly popular neighborhood for land acquisition and development projects. Rather than have market forces shape the community, this project provides recommendations that would direct market forces to incorporate social and community goals into the development process. Futuro de Frogtown is envisioned as a means to better incorporate the values and priorities of fellow community members into the revitalization efforts of the L.A. River. This project addresses the impact of future changes to Q Conditions, which are regulations delineating what can be built on commercial and manufacturing land in Elysian Valley. While potentially effective in protecting the physical character of the neighborhood, Q Conditions and other measures need more features to ensure they include input from the people of the community, especially to preserve the socioeconomic and cultural vibrancy that makes Frogtown unique. The community engagement and research process for the project launched on September 13, 2014, and ended on December 16, 2014. Futuro de Frogtown provided a platform for active community discussions that established the basis for policy and programmatic recommendations. This project sought to provoke, challenge, and unpack the complications associated with gentrification. After four months of community engagement, this report collects, synthesizes, and presents a series of perspectives and strategies based on the work carried out during that period.
We heard a diverse set of perspectives grounded in appreciation of the unique physical character of the neighborhood and demographic diversity of its community. There is a broad consensus that preserving the physical character of the neighborhood is important. The adaptive reuse of buildings is a popular and desirable approach, while the addition of high-density projects is not. Working class families fear the displacement of longtime residents and would like to see more affordable housing, but not if it comes with dense buildings. As the community changes, there is also a desire to see the informal economies of today be a part of the new economy of tomorrow. Despite a call to upgrade many infrastructure systems, which often require economic activity, many community members are unwilling to compromise on changes that come with increased population or building density.
Achieving the goals set forth by the community will require local leaders to maintain constructive public engagement that is inclusive rather than divisive, ask policy makers to encourage smart and equitable growth while enabling citizen involvement, and invite developers to address local impacts of their projects and build on the existing vibrancy of the community. If these elements are achieved, Frogtown could become a model of community-driven change.
7
What needs to be done?
Executive Summary
With insights gained from the community members of the Elysian Valley, the strategies shared in this report are geared towards community stakeholders, developers, and policy makers. These strategies are offered as an editorial by LA-Mรกs. These strategies include a range of alternatives that aim to inform changes to Q Conditions, provide options to ensure housing affordability, highlight a new approach to economic development, identify infrastructure improvements, and strengthen community connections. With real estate development being a primary driver of investment, we also include a broad community checklist for private and public entities to consider.
What did participants say?
Project Brief & Methodology
8
PROJECT BRIEF & METHODOLOGY Framework
ORIGINS The Futuro de Frogtown project was envisioned as a means to better incorporate the values and priorities of community members in revitalization efforts for the L.A. River. This project evolved out of earlier collaborations between Clockshop and LA-Más. LA-Más collaborated with Clockshop to host Renter’s Rights and First Time Home Buying workshops for the residents of the community from February to March 2014. Helen Leung, Director of Social Impact for LA-Más and neighborhood resident, served on a panel for Frogtown Futuro, a series of conversations, film screenings, and workshops hosted by Clockshop on the nature of the transformation of Elysian Valley. As a means to continue the momentum of Frogtown Futuro, Julia and David commissioned the engagement and research process that is now known as Futuro de Frogtown. The project aims to ensure the character of the neighborhood is not compromised as it changes. GOALS Broadly, the goal of Futuro de Frogtown is to ensure the community’s transformation is directed by its stakeholders in direct conversations with market forces. This project does not sanitize the differing opinions, but rather highlights the diverse and different needs of the community. Specifically, the project sets out to: • Inform the emerging relationship between the revitalization efforts of the Los Angeles River and the development of Elysian Valley • Explore the nature of the real-estate development process being proposed along the Los Angeles River • Unpack community tensions and create distinctions between the sensitive concepts of gentrification and involuntary displacement • Support existing community efforts to shape context-appropriate and culturally sensible growth for Elysian Valley • Ensure community priorities are driving changes to land use regulations in Elysian Valley.
10
OBJECTIVES In support of the project goals, the following objectives served as actionable items that informed our overall strategy: • Understand the diverse community perspectives: Given the different socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the community, this project sought to identify the full range of perspectives held within Elysian Valley. Through a series of multi-topic and educational workshops, we sought to better understand the values underlying all opinions.
Project Brief & Methodology
• Create a direction for community growth: This project builds on the Northeast Los Angeles Riverfront District Vision Plan & Economic Development Implementation Strategy by providing specifics unique to the character of Elysian Valley and summarizing the different aspirations for the neighborhood as it continues to grow. This report identifies potential strategies that can help the community realize a future that is reflective of its stakeholders. • Inform Q Conditions policy change: The primary policy intervention of this project is to inform changes to Q Conditions. We sought to provide context and background information to the Department of City Planning and community members to support the public approval process.
LA-MĂ S POSITION
11
The Futuro de Frogtown report advocates for an expansion of Q Conditions that preserve the physical aspect of the community and recognizes the socioeconomic and cultural vibrancy of its people. The process was grounded on communitybased research, involving related practices of education, urban planning, and policy advocacy. The research did not set out to produce an exhaustive audit of academic papers and activities related to gentrification and revitalization outside the neighborhood of Elysian Valley. The report intends to inform community development for Elysian Valley, not elsewhere.
We believe individuals should possess the power and resources to fulfill their own potential and shape their identity in the neighborhood. Involuntary displacement destroys any hope of achieving these goals. However, we also believe that individuals living in the neighborhood have the freedom to choose what to do with their properties and not be demonized for choosing to sell. Thus, we are not against voluntary displacement.
Project Brief & Methodology
Through a series of six community engagement workshops, we sought to critically understand the key concerns held by community members and present a report that includes the diverse voices heard throughout the engagement process. We sought to provide an inclusive space where residents could communicate their concerns regarding preservation of physical aspects, increasing property prices, and infrastructure improvements while allowing for government officials and developers to directly hear about a variety of nuanced issues specific to Elysian Valley. With the leadership of project consultant Mott Smith, the workshops also served to explain how both market and city actors shape the real estate process. By providing information to residents about tradeoffs during the development process, they may better advocate for themselves and address the challenges associated with gentrification and displacement.
12
Research Methodology
GROUNDWORK LA-Mรกs had the opportunity to build our project based on the experiences and lessons we gained from engaging individuals from Elysian Valley on other initiatives such as Frogtown Futuro, Elysian Valley Knowledge Hubs, #LA2050Listens, and the Northeast L.A. Riverfront Collaborative. We made community-specific recommendations for the funding priorities of the LA2050 program and the Northeast Los Angeles Riverfront District Vision Plan & Economic Development Implementation Strategy. It is important to clarify that through these past initiatives, we participated in creating workshops that collected knowledge about the neighborhood, while also shaping multiple paths for inclusive development.
Project Brief & Methodology
INTERVIEWS Interviews with more than a dozen community development experts, neighborhood leaders, and local government representatives deeply inspired our approach. Before the project launched, we spent six weeks conducting semi-structured, in-person, and informal interviews. Notably, our meeting with Theresa Hwang of the Skid Row Housing Trust at the headquarters of Our Skid Row inspired us to create a headquarters for the Futuro de Frogtown project in the community. Also, we communicated with Council District 13 and inquired about their plans and priorities for Elysian Valley. Overall, these interviews helped us shape the broad goals, specific objectives, and evolving strategy for Futuro de Frogtown. ADVISORY GROUPS We invited many of the interviewees to participate in the project as members of the Community Advisory Board (CAB) or Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC). The CAB is representative of the community through its diverse stakeholders. Members consist of residents, business owners, property owners, and organization leaders of Elysian Valley. Composed of local community development experts in Los Angeles, SAC members represent diverse fields such as organizing, development, advocacy, engagement, and academia. The goal for both advisory teams was to create a diverse, informed, and passionate group of stakeholders that would advise LA-Mรกs on a process that is both meaningful locally and relevant citywide. Many advisory members actively participated in the workshops in a wide range of capacities, from helping participants complete the facilitation exercises to providing critical oversight of the process.
WORKSHOPS
Engagement
13
We created six workshops: five Neighborhood 101 workshops and one Q Conditions workshop. The first five workshops focused on neighborhood-specific topics, while the Q Conditions workshop synthesized all concerns. We conducted the workshops at different sites around the neighborhood. The intent was to help our neighbors visualize and observe firsthand how some of their choices could translate into a physical space. A clear example was Workshop 6, which took place at the Elysian Valley United Community Services Center. This site is an old manufacturing building converted into a LAUSD continuation school through adaptive reuse. It served to demonstrate how adaptive reuse could maintain the low density character of the neighborhood but still introduce new uses.
The way residents understood and responded to the scenarios and physical environment was imperative. After each workshop, we would interpret the neighbors’ responses and design the next workshop around the concerns and opportunities discussed. We gained knowledge from observing neighbors’ responses to the structured experiences of the workshops. As such, we would: 1. Design a question or scenario to assess how the residents felt about a topic 2. Present the question or scenario to the community in an clear way 3. Evaluate neighbors’ responses and reactions using systems thinking to elicit insights that might be otherwise overlooked 4. Create a feedback loop, building the next scenario based on the recorded reactions. This method allowed us to engage people on topics such as density, affordable housing, and infrastructure improvements along the L.A. River by capturing more in-depth qualitative differences on the topics, while also allowing developers and government officials to comprehend key nuances, such as preserving neighborhood affordability vs. endorsing government-subsidized affordable housing.
Project Brief & Methodology
A key actor in the process of understanding the neighborhood’s lived-space was Mott Smith, our facilitator of discussions. Mott was instrumental in illuminating the motivations behind preferences, thus shedding light on the real estate development process. He also provoked discussion grounded on facts unique to market forces and highlighted tradeoffs that occur within neighborhoods in transition.
14
OUTREACH APPROACH
Project Brief & Methodology
Community outreach describes a range of activities for the dissemination of information. It was important to actively reach out to neighbors through different mediums because any one medium only prioritizes one subset of the community. By combining physical or offline community outreach tactics with online methods, we reached neighbors who otherwise would not participate. • Bilingual Communications: English and Spanish flyers were created for each event. With the support of hired local youth, flyers were posted in key areas in the neighborhood. • Paid Advertisements: The project was featured in The Frogtown Artwalk event program and Community Beacon, a neighborhood newspaper. • Community Partnerships: The Elysian Valley Neighborhood Watch and Neighborhood Council provided electronic updates in their newsletter and distribution lists. • Project Website: Our blog served as an online centralized archive and our email newsletter provided constant updates while featuring upcoming events, relevant news articles, and updates on development projects. • Door-to-Door Canvassing: Team members, along with supportive residents, actively walked the neighborhood to invite residents in close proximity to the workshops. • Bi-weekly Open Houses: The office of LA-Más invited the community to our office, which featured an area dedicated to archiving all the exercise boards utilized during the workshops. • Workshop Markers: Bilingual, two-sided metal markers featuring site background, workshop details, and project information were posted at the location of each of the Neigorhood 101 workshops as part of the Frogtown Artwalk. Of note, the largest community turnout came in response to an email sent by a neighbor a day before Workshop 6 that had alarming but inaccurate information. The email asked residents to attend the workshop to stop a plan to tear down all the homes between Crystal Street and the L.A. River as part of the continual remodeling of the Los Angeles River Bike Path. Though the scenario in the email was untrue, the panic produced a higher participation attendance, mostly neighbors who had never come out to the process. The higher turnout gave the team the opportunity to further educate neighbors on the process to change Q Conditions.
ATTENDANCE MAP Each circle represents the approximate location of participants
15
PARTICIPANT TURNOUT
The largest attendance (35 on the sign-in sheet) was at Workshop 6. Although unquantifiable, a few people forgot or chose not to sign in, despite a proactive registration table, which could indicate a slightly higher participation rate than reported above. While the participation turnout in the process is low, that is nevertheless common for the neighborhood. COMMENTING PERIOD After a month of analysis, we shared a Draft Report in both English and Spanish with the community during a feedback period of three weeks. Community members were encouraged to provide any ideas, suggestions, and critiques. Hard copies of the Draft Report were distributed in five locations and an electronic copy was made available for download on our website. There were multiple options to provide feedback, from commenting online to sending emails. We received comments from more than two dozen individuals that covered a full range of topics.
Project Brief & Methodology
We directly engaged during the workshop a total of 146 unique individuals (1.65% of Frogtown’s 8,869 residents) and had an online newsletter subscription base of 284 people (of which we had contact rate of 42%).
16 WORKSHOP 3
The Context
River Revitalization (character in “The Two Makers” story).
THE CONTEXT Recent History of Development
Currently, City of Los Angeles officials face two important tasks along the Los Angeles River: the need for economic development and the desire to protect river-adjacent communities. In order for the $1 billion river revitalization investment by the federal government to become a reality, the City needs to match the investment and the best option is to use additional revenues from property taxes resulting from new development projects. At the same time, the City also wants to minimize displacement of longtime residents and protect communities from out-of-context development along the river. But finding alternatives to preserve affordability without big scale development remains a challenge. Elysian Valley, better known as Frogtown, is a working-class community within Northeast Los Angeles. This 0.79-square mile, island-like community adjacent to the Los Angeles River is at the heart of many changes. In the past decade, the demographics of the predominantly Latino neighborhood have been reshaped by an influx of creative neighbors, such as architectural firms, design shops, art studios, and restaurants. In the past two years, there has been a lot of land speculation and land-grabbing resulting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announcement in May 2014 of an ambitious $1 billion proposal that would turn the spine of Elysian Valley into a recreational and ecological destination. Data from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor collected in September 2014 and January 2015 shows that between October 2011 and December 2014, 39 commercial/industrial properties have changed ownership in Elysian Valley. Of these properties 39 properties, 10 are river-adjacent. Five of those acquisitions of riveradjacent properties took place in 2014. The next wave of demographic shifts in Frogtown will likely be driven by the type of real estate developments being proposed in these World War II-era warehouses and vacant lots. As such, residents have expressed fear that dense new developments would be too big and out of character with the neighborhood. Others voiced concern that encouraging adaptive reuse or live/work spaces that only cater to the creative class might be culturally inappropriate for a working class neighborhood. To address these issues, the Elysian Valley Riverside Neighborhood Council (EVRNC) started to explore what role Q Condition changes could play in 2013.
Q CONDITIONS MAP Parcels highlighted in blue are affected by the “qualified conditions for approval”
Project Brief & Methodology
18
Zoning rules govern the development of land, and in Los Angeles, Q Conditions – also officially known as ‘qualified conditions for approval’ – determine the activities that can take place on a property, as well as the shape and size of its buildings. Q Conditions are a type of zoning law particular to Los Angeles, and in Elysian Valley they apply to most parcels zoned for commercial and manufacturing use, most of which are located along the L.A. River and in the northern half of the community.
What are the Q Conditions?
19
The current set of Q Conditions that regulate land use in commercial and manufacturing parcels in Elysian Valley were approved more than 10 years ago as a means to better facilitate the transitions between commercial/manufacturing and residential uses in the neighborhood. For more detailed information, please view the Urban Planning & Related Definitions section of the Appendix.
Based on the Q Conditions Open House hosted by DCP in December 2014, the following list of elements are the ones up for re-consideration: • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): the FAR maximum is currently at 1.5. On average, existing buildings in the community are between 0.5 and 0.75. A lower FAR cap is being considered. • Building Height: the maximum building height is currently 45 feet. A lower height limit is being considered. • Building Use: an unspecified mix of commercial, manufacturing, and residential uses is currently allowed. A defined mix of specific building use is being considered, with the possibility of limiting residential use. • Parking Requirements: the most common way to fulfill parking requirements is through parking spots. Bicycle parking is being considered as an option to fulfill parking demand. What Q Conditions Are Not: It is important to note that Q Conditions do not apply to residentially zoned properties or address community-wide needs. Single family or multifamily houses will not be directly impacted. Changes to the Q Conditions are not able to address larger questions, such as improvements to infrastructure systems or the overall impact of adding more people and buildings in the neighborhood.
Project Brief & Methodology
The Department of City Planning (DCP) is in the process of updating the Q Conditions for Elysian Valley with direction from Council Member Mitch O’Farrell of Council District 13. A Council motion was introduced in October 2014 to start the process and DCP is planning to release a draft of the new Q Conditions for public review in summer of 2015.
20
Neighborhood Council Advocacy
In January 2014, the EVRNC Board voted to approve recommendations for changes to the Q Conditions. In December 2014, the Neighborhood Council hosted a town hall to share their recommendations with the community. For more information, visit http:// evrnc.nationbuilder.com. The overall approach by the Neighborhood Council is to support changes that would maintain the physical character of the community. Recommendations include:
The Context
1. Lower FAR from 1.5 to 0.75 as a means to maintain views to the mountains and L.A. River, maximize light on the river path, minimize impact on infrastructure, such as sewage systems, and create more affordable units to compensate for reduced square footage of the unit size. 2. Re-use existing buildings as a means to maintain local character and culture. 3. Promote mixed uses on properties and encourage more commercial than residential use as a means to bring jobs and local services to the community. (Mixed use would include live/work spaces.) The LA-Más team sought to highlight the socioeconomic impacts and cultural implications of these recommendations. Although the Q Conditions are limited from holistically addressing the broader impact of economic activity in the neighborhood, it is important to acknowledge the issues that are relevant. The impact of changes to the Q Conditions will be short term because they will only be in effect until the City’s new zoning code is adopted. The Department of City Planning (DCP) is embarking on one of the City’s largest planning initiatives to date, ‘re:code LA’, a comprehensive revision of L.A.’s outdated zoning code. When the new code is adopted in 2018, Q Conditions will be eliminated, replaced by a holistic zoning system for Los Angeles. Thus, we consider changes to Q Conditions in Elysian Valley to be a fast but temporary way to shape development that is community-sensible. The best tool, though slow to implement, is an update to the Community Plan for this area.
21
The Context
22
BBQ OPEN HOUSE
Findings
Insight-finding exercise.
FINDINGS
Participants of Futuro de Frogtown saw the Q Conditions process as an important ‘make-or-break’ moment in the larger discursive history of Elysian Valley. To understand the different perspectives from a diverse community of interests, we have organized key community interactions and exchanges in this section under six topics.
CREATIVE CLASS, WORKING CLASS AND ‘MAKERS’
24
Individuals in the community used the terms ‘creative class’, ‘working class’ and ‘makers’ as a way to position themselves in relation to proposed changes to the Q Conditions. These three recurring terms, and how the groups they represent constructed their positions in light of development, reflect the tension between the different values people in the neighborhood hold. Through the six workshops, the members of the community described themselves using different words, such as renters, homeowners, longtime residents, makers, artists, creative class, working class, Latinos, seniors, conservation activists, etc. These self-generated labels used by the participants describe and reflect a mix of ethnic, cultural, income/employment, and time-lived in the community as key values under which they organized themselves.
Findings
While everyone seemed interested in retaining the physical character of the neighborhood while obtaining more amenities, the members of Elysian Valley would utilize the self-generated labels to evoke a particular service or need, and even to voice concerns their group was being marginalized during the revitalization process. Creative Class: The use of the label ‘creative class’ in Elysian Valley closely conforms to what urban studies theorist Richard Florida describes as a subset of the SuperCreative Core (artist, designers, architects, media workers, writers, and urban planners). The ‘creative class’ pushed for developing more adaptive reuse and live/work spaces, and they were worried that a lot of projects proposed both from developers and the City officials did not cater to them. A message written on a post-it note by a community member reflects this sentiment: “The small scale industrial buildings along the river are perfect for artisans. The river master plan and planning docs don’t use the word ‘art’ often enough.” Working Class: The term ‘working class’ was utilized interchangeably to define different things. In most instances, the term was used to describe only blue-collar jobs (such as skilled manufacturing workers or cooks). In other instances, the term was used to include both blue-collar jobs and white-collar jobs (such as teachers and administrative workers). In Elysian Valley, the term working class seemed to be synonymous with lower-income Latinos. As such, the adaptive reuse of buildings being used to create live/work spaces did not resonate with working class concerns for affordable housing. The working class’s concerns were related to avoiding displacement, upgrading basic infrastructure, and ensuring that new businesses do not solely cater to high-end markets in order to support rather than neglect the local community.
25
We believe much of the initial tension between the various classes came from people talking in silos and not being able to express their opinions publicly to each other on an equal playing field. The traditional models of discussing such issues in the neighborhood were top-down and in formal government-officiated settings, which often labels attendees with specific structured roles, such as Neighborhood Council member vs. resident or government official vs. citizen, but never neighbor to neighbor. As such, we conclude that the emergence of the label ‘makers’ reflected the need to bridge the differences in development needs and community values. In Elysian Valley, the term had no connection to the definition popularized by O’Reilly Media and Make Magazine to describe a more affluent subset of the Do-It-Yourself culture. ‘Makers’ is usually used to describe people who use technologies associated with sensors and microprocessors along with craft production. Instead, in Elysian Valley, the term was utilized as a way to recognize and bridge the manual work of the blue-collar residents and small manufacturers in the area to the growing population from the creative class.
Post-it note writen by community member.
Findings
WORKSHOP 2
GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT
26
The concerns with gentrification and displacement are rooted in two concepts: a) “Others” and development in Elysian Valley and b) residents’ memories of Chavez Ravine.
“Others” and development in Elysian Valley
Residents asserted that developers are “others”, or people who share dissimilar values and thus bring into the community negative cultural values, out of context development, and accelerated gentrification. There were two different reasons why the Q Conditions were seen as a way to stop developers. First, the creative class thought changing them would stop dense developments. Second, a group of longtime residents thought that not changing the Q Conditions would send a clear message that they did not want new buildings in the neighborhood. For the first time in decades, developers are building to the FAR maximum of 1.5, much higher than most buildings in the neighborhood. The current Q Conditions are flexible enough to allow the types of projects many residents view as undesirable in the community, such as high-density residential development projects.
Findings
Developers and in some instances City officials were identified as these unwelcomed “others”. To the residents, developers and City officials favor the dense projects dissimilar to the values held by residents. Residents used self-affirmation, such as time lived in the neighborhood, to pose their beliefs as the right ones, to minimize risk of being undermined, and to avoid anything that could be imposed by outside interests. One view held that by changing Q Conditions, residents could limit the density and height of a building and shape the community to keep the density low. The creative class pushed for changes that favored lowering FAR and encouraging adaptive reuse, preferring to define the parameters for development themselves. However, a vocal minority of participants expressed that making any type of changes, even those to lower FAR and restrict building height, would send the wrong message and thus preferred that no changes would be made. This group equated making changes to the Q Conditions as a signal that the community invited development, something they did not wish even if it was at a lower FAR. When a participant asked Mott the reason why maintaining the status quo would be worse than updating the zoning rules, he replied: “...if you own your house, you can keep your house. Nobody’s going to stop you from that. But other people… if they own [the] properties… can say ‘I’ve lived here for ten years, I can do what I want’. And it’s when those things come into conflict every single time, [that] the nasty issues arise.” Mott was trying describe how little control a community member will have over oneoff developments or private properties without clear guidelines in place to dictate
27
the parameters of development. Additionally Mott was suggesting that updating the Q Conditions related to the goals of the community could address their desire to keep future property developments small. In some ways, there is hope that maintaining the status quo would stop new development. Longtime residents and the working class expressed their distrust in the City and the reassurances that the City is not interested in using eminent domain in the neighborhood. Long time residents expressed concerns about yet another predominantly low-income Latino neighborhood being neglected during the Q Conditions process. Those who had moved to Elysian Valley after the tragic events of Chavez Ravine, when families were displaced by eminent domain in the 1950’s for the purpose of building new affordable housing, especially felt the sentiment. The events of Chavez Ravine serve as a reason as to why developers should not be allowed to shape their neighborhood.
Resident’s Memories of Chavez Ravine
The most emblematic moment of this fraught discussion came during a heated conversation between a representative of the Department of City Planning and a resident of Elysian Valley. To the elderly resident, 50 years ago was still too close for such a traumatic lived experience, while to the younger planner, 50 years was solid proof of the City’s ongoing commitment to not use eminent domain.
Similarly, many voiced their interest for government-subsidized affordable housing as one tactic to maintain housing affordability in the neighborhood, but only so long as it would not entail new housing stock being built. Many residents believe the process of constructing new housing stock in the neighborhood could lead to displacement similar to that of Chavez Ravine.
Findings
We conclude that with regard to real estate development and gentrification, many residents hope and believe that maintaining the status quo would stop new projects and thus avoid displacement.
28
IN FAVOR OF ADAPTIVE REUSE
Preserving the physical character of the neighborhood through the adaptive reuse of existing commercial and manufacturing buildings was overwhelmingly desirable. Residents’ visions for how adaptive reuse might apply in Elysian Valley differed substantially. Overall, most participants believe that the most appropriate way of preserving the physical character of the neighborhood is by keeping existing buildings intact. For the creative class, adaptive reuse was tied to the desirable creation and use of live/work spaces. However, for the working class, the reason to support adaptive reuse was primarily to prevent new and dense buildings being developed in the neighborhood. The initial push for adaptive reuse being used to create live/work spaces did not resonate with the working class, renters, or longtime residents and their concerns about affordability.
WORKSHOP 3
Findings
Post-it notes writen by community members
However, when Mott explained to the participants that to construct governmentsubsidized affordable housing means that developers are awarded a density bonus (thus making new buildings denser), many participants changed their minds about advocating such projects. With dense buildings being the alternative to live/work spaces, adaptive reuse eventually became a preferred option for both creative and working class neighbors. Some residents evoked moral clauses as a reason to discourage density. One poignant example was the anecdote of a resident whose single-story home has been ‘trapped’ amidst a newly built three-story condominium building. Renters interested in housing affordability expressed concerns that governmentsubsidized affordable housing would not be possible if the Q Conditions only encouraged adaptive reuse. However, longtime residents did not favor governmentsubsidized affordable housing if it comes with building density and lottery systems. Since lottery systems prohibit guarantees that current residents could move into new affordable units, residents preferred instead to limit new housing stock, even if it meant fewer affordable units in the neighborhood. Instead, their pleas shifted from government-subsidized affordable housing to overall community affordability. While there was no consensus on the uses for future development projects, preserving the physical character of the neighborhood through adaptive reuse of existing commercial and manufacturing buildings was overwhelmingly desirable.
CONTRADICTIONS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT DENSITY
Residents want the neighborhood to stay affordable, but the known tactics to maintain a neighborhood’s affordability are not appealing to them. They opposed affordable housing because this type of development tends to be dense. They also opposed new market-rate housing stock because the projects recently proposed by developers would aggravate the traffic problems in the neighborhood.
29
For the workshop participants, new housing stock is undesirable because it implies that more people will live in the neighborhood. The result is more cars competing to find street parking, more traffic on narrow and dead end streets, and more strain on infrastructure systems, such as sewer lines and water pipes. Moreover, new housing also implies new buildings, which could result in the very physical transformation residents want to avoid. Residents expressed two different alternatives to reconcile the housing demand without affecting the physical environment. The first alternative channels the demand for housing through existing housing options. Longtime residents preferred to support granny flats, which are accessory dwelling units or converted garages, as a way of legalizing some of the “hidden” density of the neighborhood. This policy effort was put on hold in 2009 after strong opposition from residents across Los Angeles concerned over increased parking demand. Granny flats are currently allowed, but requirements are very strict, making the process to convert them into housing very expensive or leaving existing granny flats ineligible. To make it a viable option would require greater government flexibility with existing building requirements.
Our findings suggest that dense buildings with affordable housing, while still controversial, were seen as slightly better than no affordable housing. Based on the feedback and concerns shared by the participants, we deduce that a three-story project with benefits to the community is potentially acceptable. However, a four-story development is too large, regardless of any benefit or incentive given in exchange to the community. Ultimately, the opposition to higher density is greater than the tradeoffs necessary to create affordable housing.
Findings
The second alternative takes existing commercial and manufacturing buildings in the neighborhood and adapts them into affordable housing. Unfortunately, the real estate market will not produce projects like this without a subsidy. The primary system that produces low-income housing units only works with higher-density projects, a feature that is incongruous with the lower-density preferences of the community. Another system that facilitates new affordable housing units is the density bonus ordinance, which allows for buildings to be bigger or taller if the developer sets aside a certain amount of affordable units within a residential project. There was a vocal minority that expressed support for 100% affordable or senior housing if the density was reasonable.
CALL FOR LEGITIMIZATION
30
Residents expressed a desire for the legitimization of the informal economy that neighborhood residents participate in and help shapes the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood. Residents in Elysian Valley have found approaches to financially sustain themselves that may not meet all government requirements, such as permits. Examples include street vending, unofficial art galleries, or other services operating out of households such as day-care centers, home-based food vending, and furniture making. Critical to the local economy, these informal businesses also provide strong community interaction and create a vibrant culture unique to Elysian Valley.
Findings
For the purpose of protecting these livelihoods, we will not provide specifics of where in the neighborhood these jobs are flourishing. However, we want to highlight that there is strong interest in the community to support and encourage these activities as legitimate businesses. There is a strong sense of urgency associated with this call for legitimization. All participants preferred that these types of informal businesses be legalized, and most supported the idea of new development projects providing discounted rental spaces to these existing neighborhood entrepreneurs. If not, many fear that commercial retail spaces embedded in bigger developments will jeopardize these existing local businesses.
WORKSHOP 5 Post-it notes writen by community members
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES
Participants discussed the different infrastructure and amenities improvements they would like to see, focusing on what was missing in the neighborhood. The improvements ranged from simple amenities, such as public restrooms at the south end of the bike path, to complex infrastructure upgrades such as a complete overhaul of the electric grid to fix constant power outages in the neighborhood.
31
Community members wanted many improvements to their neighborhood: better sidewalks, greater sewage system capacity, different parking options, access to free Wi-Fi, coffee shops, etc. Many prioritized improvements that increase the capacity of the electric grid, provide a better sewage system, and expand parking options. Incessant sewage odors and frequent electric outages reflect the need for serious infrastructure improvements to handle the current capacity of the neighborhood. There was no consensus on how to deal with the parking situation. Residents’ concerns were primarily centered on issues with traffic circulation due to limited parking spaces and an increase in visitors in the neighborhood. One suggestion that received positive reactions was to encourage more bicycle parking in housing and commercial developments. Participants also acknowledged Mott’s point that more parking does not necessarily result in less traffic.
Findings
Overall, residents, especially the elderly, wanted thoughtful investment. Concerns about who benefits from the improvements were mentioned in light of the existing tension between the cyclist population and residents on the river path. Some even used the paved path as an example of development that is not community-oriented because historically the dirt road was used for walking. Now paved, it has displaced walkers and prioritized bikers. Similarly, the elderly expressed interest in community centers and commented that if new development comes in, these projects should prioritize the creation of a community center and related programs over providing commercial retail spaces.
Potential Strategies
32
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES
The following strategies seek to provide tangible next steps that are achievable and meaningful options for future development in Elysian Valley. Most importantly, they are inspired by the values articulated by community stakeholders. These strategic interventions are offered as an editorial by LA-Mรกs in an attempt to address requests for inclusive development while honoring the unique fabric of the diverse people and physical places of Frogtown. Based on community feedback to the Draft Report, this section also provides direction for new property owners who will be moving forward with real estate projects while the City is designing a new set of Q Conditions. Each strategy requires multiple parties to collaborate, resources to be allocated, and existing organizations to evolve or new organizations to be established. These strategies work best if implemented together, but can be also be developed individually. However, for the sake of clarity, the following strategies will be presented in five categories and in a community checklist.
Q CONDITIONS PLUS MORE
34
Changes to Q Conditions should preserve the physical form of the neighborhood and prioritize commercial activity, but simultaneous City efforts are necessary to address the community as a whole. The Q Conditions are a policy tool that can redirect and manage the most financially compelling real estate project proposals at this time – high-density market rate housing with limited commercial use. Changes to the Q Conditions can provide a framework for development on the largest properties in the community, but it fails to provide infrastructure solutions that are community-wide or address social justice issues such as affordable housing and affordability. As such, the City must explore other alternatives.
Strategy 1·A
The Department of City Planning should consider the reduction of FAR from 1.5 to 0.75 and/or a reduction of building height from 45 feet to 36 feet in the new Q Conditions.
Potential Strategies
This strategy is grounded in strong community opposition to new large buildings next to traditional one- or two-story buildings. The physical form of new buildings – the density and height – will transform the existing physical character of the neighborhood. The currently allowed maximum FAR is 1.5 and building height is 45 ft, which is about two to three times larger than the average size and height of existing buildings. Residents feel threatened by buildings that deviate from the existing context. Although a FAR of 0.75 and building height of 36 feet are arbitrary numbers, they indicate a compromise for growth that is not radically out of context. With these changes, new buildings would be slightly bigger than current buildings, but rise no more than three floors. With good design strategies, there are tangible ways to make a dense building less overwhelming, such as using step-backs or facade breaks. Overall, the community’s aversion to a tall building is greater than to a dense building. Thus, if both density and height cannot be reduced, we encourage prioritizing a reduction to the building height maximum.
Strategy 1·B
The Department of City Planning should designate the primary use of buildings to commercial rather than residential in the new Q Conditions. Another priority expressed by community members is the preference for commercial use rather than residential use in new development. The population and traffic density resulting from new residential uses is a great concern to many community members. The desire for economic activity and retail services prioritize commercial use on these properties. Commercial use also favors the adaptive reuse of older manufacturing buildings – an approach that helps to preserve the physical form of the neighborhood. As a caveat, by limiting the creation of new residential units, the affordability of housing in residentially zoned properties may decrease. As a result, higher-income renters are
35
better positioned to secure housing than lower income renters. That being said, until alternative models for creating low-density affordable housing is developed, the community advocates first for more commercial use. Council District 13 should prioritize an Interim Control Ordinance and Community Plan update or identify resources to support projects that address the community-wide impacts of new development.
Strategy 1路C
If the above changes to the Q Conditions are enacted, the likelihood of new affordable housing in the community is significantly reduced and community-wide impacts of this issue remain unaddressed. If the properties governed by the Q Conditions are evaluated alone, the strategies set forth make sense. However, when the cumulative effects are considered, Q Conditions fail to address issues of social justice or community-wide growth.
FI ND
IN
T GS
IN IE-
IN FAVOR OF ADAPTIVE REUSE
We prioritized the physical character of the community by advocating for a reduction in allowable maximum building height and density. We prioritized commercial activity over residential activity by encouraging building uses that favor adaptive reuse. AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT DENSITY We highlight community concerns on involuntary displacement by prompting the City to consider solutions beyond the Q Conditions.
Potential Strategies
The City has the authority to address these questions, but it is Council District 13 who is best positioned to take a leadership role. One option is to implement an Interim Control Ordinance, a temporary moratorium on development, in Elysian Valley until development guidelines are clearer. This should take place in conjunction with an update to the Community Plan or by creating an overlay specific to Elysian Valley. To address community-wide impacts, Council District 13 should explore how best to leverage financial resources and policy initiatives as noted in Strategy 2 and 4.
ALTERNATIVE AFFORDABILITY
36
As an alternative to high-density affordable housing projects, different mechanisms for preserving housing affordability for existing residents should be explored. As the neighborhood becomes more desirable, rents will increase along with property values. One of the biggest concerns expressed by working class families is the decrease in housing affordability. Rents will no longer be affordable for lower-income families. The traditional model of creating affordable housing units is incompatible with the physical vision of community members, so alternative approaches should be considered. The strategies here are not innovative on their own, but rather represent efforts that should be comprehensively and intentionally pursued. The character of this community is its people, so it is important to identify ways to ensure there is affordable housing for current residents, especially renters who would like to stay in the community or purchase a home here someday.
Strategy 2·A
Community leaders should advocate for new residential projects to have preferences for local residents (when possible) on rental and purchase opportunities.
Potential Strategies
With new residential real estate projects, there are opportunities to advocate for the community. For affordable rental properties, qualified renters in the community are best positioned if they are prepared to submit their paperwork as early and as complete as possible. For sales properties, such as small lot subdivision projects or condos, the community should be persistent and respectful in requesting developers offer preference for local residents. If developers are amenable, a neighborhood-based program should match sellers with local buyers or prepare local renters to qualify for affordable rental units. Often, potential homebuyers and renters with higher incomes from other communities are more successful in securing deals. With the support of the EVRNC, LA-Más created the Elysian Valley Knowledge Hubs – a resident-led program that serves as information hubs on a range of housing issues, including renter/landlord rights and financial literacy. There is great potential to build on this resident-based resource to include rental referrals, especially for local renters who are being involuntarily displaced. Intentional collaboration and outreach can go a long way toward helping renters find another place in the community to rent. One approach is to explore a housing database that offers classified ads to be shared only with community renters and homeowners of Elysian Valley.
Strategy 2·B
A community-based organization should help low-income renters increase their social mobility through career development and asset building. A challenging task in housing is to ensure that low-income renters are able to find affordable rental units. Although the Rent Stabilization Ordinance limits rent increases
37
for many of the rental units in Elysian Valley, new property owners are permitted to pay relocation fees under certain circumstances to remove tenants. The best way to support low-income renters is to enhance their financial well-being. As a start, we propose three potential avenues that community-based organizations should explore either individually or together: 1) Leverage the local resource of Goodwill’s WorkSource Center to help current residents move up the career ladder through workforce training opportunities or job matches. 2) Partner with the East LA Community Corporation to provide financial planning. 3) Explore a first-time homebuyer down payment grant assistance program with a local bank, which can help banks fulfill federal Credit Reinvestment Act requirements. The availability of resources to enable current residents to maximize their social mobility and their ability to remain in the neighborhood if desired can provide a significant overall impact to the community. Community members should explore alternative ownership approaches that involve bringing in a non-profit development partner or consider becoming developers themselves.
Strategy 2·C
DI
FI N
Rather than trying to own a home on one’s own, owning a home with others may be financially more feasible, but would be structurally more complicated. Housing cooperatives are democratically controlled corporations established to provide housing for members. Specifically, limited equity housing cooperatives can offer permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. This model is best demonstrated by the Los Angeles Eco Village, which can serve as an example for local renters who are interested in pooling their resources.
We encourage workforce and financial training as a way to promote home-grown gentrification and support the social mobility of current residents. AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT DENSITY We encourage community members to explore alternative models of development, such as partnering with likeminded organizations to promote affordability without the high density.
Potential Strategies
The community land trust model, a form of property ownership where a non-profit organization holds legal title to land but sells the unit to low-income buyers, was often mentioned in the workshops as an opportunity to maintain community ownership of property. Given that land value is fairly high in Elysian Valley, this model would be difficult to execute. However, if there are opportunities for the IN public land in Elysian Valley to be redeveloped, a partnership with a IET local non-profit community development corporation – such as S GENTRIFICATION East Los Angeles Community Corporation (ELACC) or Women NG AND DISPLACEMENT Organizing Resources, Knowledge, and Strategy (WORKS) – should be explored. Potential candidates include the We encourage developers to provide preference vacant lot owned by Public Storage next to its property to local residents when selling or renting market-rate at Gail/Blake or the City-owned building at Dorris/Blake. units as a way to mitigate displacement.
FORMALIZING THE INFORMAL
38
To ensure that local entrepreneurs are part of the new economy, community members should help transition informal economic enterprises into formal businesses operations. A unique tapestry of this community is its network of informal businesses, from entrepreneurs selling food from their front porches to building cabinets in their garage. However, as more businesses open in the community, many of which have the resources and capacity to be fully permitted and licensed, there is a fear that informal businesses will be voluntarily or involuntarily shut down. In order to be proactive in creating a local business economy that is inclusive and equitable, new partnerships should be formed to help existing businesses thrive in the new economy and facilitate new businesses serving the community.
FI N
Potential Strategies
Strategy 3·A
N DI
T GS
IE-IN
Community leaders should request that developers consider discounted commercial space for local businesses or neighborhood-serving retailers. Even with licensing and permitting support, some local entrepreneurs face the reality that their businesses can’t be permitted at their current location of operations. For example, until the introduction of new rules to allow street vending (a process currently in the works), a person selling tamales on the street will be unable to get the necessary permits. However, there may be an opportunity for local entrepreneurs to find a new base in proposed commercial property projects. This approach requires that community leaders persistently and respectfully advocate for business considerations that serve the community.
CALL FOR LEGITIMIZATION
We request developers provide discounted commercial space for local businesses. We propose a partnership with the nearest Los Angeles BusinessSource Center to support the capacity of current entrepreneurs with technical assistance.
There are many models in which development projects feature local businesses and neighborhood-serving retail, such as Mercado La Paloma in south Los Angeles. As important as it is to secure a commitment from a developer, it is equally important for the community to define the parameters for community benefit. We offer the following considerations:
1. Neighborhood-serving retail should have some products or services at a price point affordable to working class families 2. Local businesses receiving rent discounts should hire locally or have been in business – officially or unofficially – for at least 3 years.
FI N
S NG I D
N TIE-I
INFRASTRUCTURE & AMENITIES We recommend that new developments projects include neighborhood-serving retail geared towards existing residents, many of whom are low-income families.
Strategy 3·B
A community-based organization should facilitate a partnership with the BusinessSource Center to better serve local entrepreneurs.
39
For many informal businesses, challenges may include: lack of business licenses or related operating permits, limited capital to grow, or under-the-table payment for services or products. Resources to addresses these challenges are free, but unfamiliar to most. The City’s network of BusinessSource Centers provides free support to entrepreneurs looking to start or expand their businesses, with the nearest located in Boyle Heights. Our community-based organizations should work together to provide outreach to local businesses. Coincidentally, Chris Pina, a senior member of the BusinessSource Center is also an Elysian Valley resident. With some thoughtful facilitation, intentional outreach, and community support, Elysian Valley businesses could receive a wealth of business technical assistance.
Strategy 3·C
River Wild LLC should focus on ensuring local businesses can thrive and that local residents can benefit from new businesses (and vice versa).
FI N
With the diversity of small businesses in the community, some of which are informal, a business alliance can protect jobs and support cottage industries. A resource to help TIE-IN with licensing, permitting, and finding space will give homegrown businesses GS N a better chance for advancement. Many local entrepreneurs are ‘makers’ DI – businesses that require craftwork, machinery, and materials. As the CREATIVE CLASS, local economy is struggling with increasing commercial rents and WORKING CLASS, AND competing with higher-income earning businesses, business support “MAKERS” and technical assistance are essential. There are untapped benefits from collective marketing, cooperative purchasing, local referrals, and We encourage River Wild LLC to perhaps better parking solutions to balance the needs of residents champion economic development and and businesses. River Wild LLC should play the role of communitybuild better connections among based business advocate. the creative class, working class, and makers.
Potential Strategies
River Wild LLC is a business advocate for community-focused economic development. Led by a longtime employee in the community, Damian Robledo, it is the only organization to date focused on business and economic development. With the biggest potential to create a chamber-like business organization, we encourage River Wild LLC to support new retail businesses so that they thrive as a regional destination, but also advocate that they provide services to current residents.
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE
40
The City should establish a funding system through which public infrastructure can be created or enhanced. Infrastructure refers to the physical systems that make our societies work. There is a history in Elysian Valley of having to fight for even basic infrastructure. For example, Elysian Valley was not designed with a system for lighting. The existing streetlights are a result of a decade-plus of advocacy between federal and local policy makers to secure funding allocation and pass voter approved property owner assessments to pay for electricity. In Elysian Valley, the infrastructure systems that need attention include our sewer system, water pipes, electric grid, and roads. With new development projects and new funding mechanisms, it is essential now more than ever for the City to ensure that infrastructure is proactively planned for, rather than reactively addressed. Some of the strategies here build on the recommendations offered in the Northeast Los Angeles Riverfront District’s Approach to Sustainable Economic Development Report (Jan 2015).
Strategy 4·A
Council District 13 should advocate to include public infrastructure improvements specific to Elysian Valley as part of the proposed Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.
Potential Strategies
For the most part, local government is limited on funds to improve physical infrastructure, but it continues to regulate upkeep. Upgrades have to meet all government permitting requirements, thus making improvements expensive and complicated. The best option to fund infrastructure improvements is through a new California state law, the Enhanced Infrastructure Financial Districts (EIFD), which allows districts to be established that fund infrastructure through future property taxes. Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell is seeking to establish the City’s first EIFD along the Los Angeles River with a focus on habitat restoration, improved infrastructure, economic development, and affordable housing. As the specifics are being explored by City agencies, we encourage Council District 13 to support infrastructure upgrades specific to Elysian Valley. These upgrades should address the increased need for infrastructure upgrades resulting from additional visitors to the community and economic development activity. Specifically, we suggest EIFD funds to address the antiquated sewer system, unfinished lighting system, and underperforming water/electricity systems.
Strategy 4·B
Council District 13 should require that new development projects along the River pay into a community-wide infrastructure fund. In instances where the Department of City Planning must grant permission to build a project, private property owners are generally required to make infrastructure upgrades. These infrastructure upgrades are required by the City to ensure that the added capacity created by new buildings and its inhabitants is served by sufficient infrastructure.
FI ND
G IN
IN IET S INFRASTRUCTURE & AMENITIES
We encourage the City to explore an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District that addresses the unique challenges within Elysian Valley as a way to meet community-wide infrastructure needs.
However, these infrastructure upgrades only apply to the site of the property. For example, if sidewalks do not exist, the property owner will have to create sidewalks on its property, but the rest of the street can remain without sidewalks.
We encourage the City to establish an Elysian Valley Infrastructure Fund to respond to the cumulative impact of individual development projects.
41
We recommend the City create a transportation strategic plan that considers cars and alternative modes of transportation to mitigate concerns over traffic and parking.
Often, the increased impact on the overall system is unaddressed. In the case above, sidewalks (or lack thereof) will likely result in more pedestrians than before, as a result of the new project. This logic can be applied to other infrastructure systems, such as the sewer system or electrical grid. To acknowledge the greater impact of new projects on these infrastructure systems, Council District 13 should establish an infrastructure fund to which new development projects would contribute. The innovation here is that the infrastructure fund should be specific to Elysian Valley and its infrastructure needs. Council District 13 should establish a strategic transportation plan for Elysian Valley, including parking districts and multi-modal transportation systems.
In the transportation-focused workshop, Mott Smith highlighted studies that reveal traffic and parking are not correlated. For example, a new public parking garage does not mean there will be less traffic. That being said, there is need to address both traffic impacts and parking strategies specific to Elysian Valley. We propose the following priorities to consider: 1. Conduct a comprehensive transportation study that includes projected additional vehicle miles traveled from new development projects; 2. Identify ways to support alternative modes of transportation to the car, including car/bicycle sharing, shuttle service, or a DASH line; 3. Plan for increasing numbers of vehicles visiting the neighborhood by exploring the potential of a parking district that addresses traffic circulation.
Potential Strategies
Traffic is a concern in many communities and Elysian Valley is no exception. Our street system features numerous dead end streets and limited ingress and egress points in the northern half of the neighborhood. Popular activities, such as the Frogtown Artwalk or the summer kayaking season, create greater traffic activity and more cars than parking spots available. With the Los Angeles River becoming an increasingly popular destination and new retail businesses opening up, there is a great need to ensure there is a holistic perspective on how to mitigate issues of increased traffic and insufficient parking.
Strategy 4路C
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
42
To strengthen the existing connections in the community, there should be a network that links together the creative economy, new economy, and working class families. The intangible charm of this community is often a by-product of residents working nearby, doing business with one another, and helping each other out. With new development projects and businesses in the pipeline, there is an opportunity to leverage the assets of Frogtown’s residents in the growth of the local economy. We propose targeted efforts to ensure local hires, protect the creative economy, and enhance community programming.
Strategy 5·A
A community-based organization should establish a database of our local skill set to facilitate hiring of Frogtown residents for new construction projects or businesses.
Potential Strategies
There is a strong history in this economy of local residents working down the street at a local manufacturing company. ‘Local hire’ occurs when a business is able to build out a workforce based in the neighborhood. There are two opportunities for local hire as the community continues to develop. First, for new real estate projects, workers with construction skills who live nearby could fill jobs in plumbing, tiling, roofing, etc. It requires a match in the right skill set, as well as a willingness from a project manager to look locally. Second, for new businesses opening shop, local residents may have the potential to fill a full range of jobs from marketing to accounting. To date, much of this matching takes places organically. We encourage a more intentional approach to be spearheaded by organizations like River Wild, which already has a pulse on new businesses, or the Elysian Valley Neighborhood Watch, which has strong connections to working class families. Moreover, we recommend this effort build on potential development projects that are exploring local hire as part of their commitment to the community. An online system featuring job postings and resumes, coupled with a unique approach to ensure undocumented and/or unpermitted employees are comfortable participating, is one approach.
Strategy 5·B
Community leaders should enhance the creative economy by supporting local artists and makers through dedicated community space and a makers’ database. The creative class in this community has strongly contributed to the creative culture of the neighborhood. The much-anticipated annual Frogtown Artwalk connects the full range of residents to artists. Similar to long-term renters, many artists and makers also see themselves as marginalized in the community revitalization process. Connecting local artists to the physical fabric of the community can help minimize the displacement of the creative class. The Arts Development Fee Ordinance, which
FI ND
G IN
IN IET S CREATIVE CLASS, WORKING CLASS, AND ‘MAKERS’
We recommend a local resident hiring system coupled with a database of workers that construction projects and businesses can tap into to ensure makers can work in their local community. We recommend a dedicated community space for the arts be established to help preserve the identity of the community, which has been informed by the creative class and makers. Similarly, we advocate for art fees from new development projects to be applied on-site and in partnership with a local artist.
43
requires developers to pay an arts fee for projects that cost more than $500,000, provides an opportunity for local art to be produced in tandem with new development projects. Rather than pay the fee into a city-wide arts fund, the community should encourage new development projects to partner with a local artist to create an art project on site. Additionally, to encourage a sustained presence of artists, new commercial properties should include discounted gallery space that offers art classes to the community and showcases works from local artists. The Arts Collective should consider leading this effort. A community organization should research the funding needs for community programming, potentially through pilot projects to better understand community demand.
FI N
Various programmatic wishes of the community have not been studied in the context of their budget funding needs. As a start, a local business or community organization should host a graduate student studying business or public policy to conduct this research. Once completed, this information should be centralized in one place for local government, private entities, or community organizations to support.
D
E-IN S TI G IN
INFRASTRUCTURE & AMENITIES We suggest design research to implement community goals and fill the historic gap in neighborhood program and services, such as a pilot shuttle service to demonstrate the need for DASH service.
Potential Strategies
Community programming requires ongoing funds for maintenance and operations. For example, ensuring that the Elysian Valley Recreation Center has robust senior programming requires dedicated staff, committed volunteers, and a budget for programming. Another example is the desire to have a DASH line extend to Elysian Valley to augment the limited service provided by the existing Metro bus line. The Department of Transportation allocates its limited resources based on potential ridership numbers. At this moment, ridership numbers from Elysian Valley may not be enough to offset the cost of extending a DASH line. In this instance, the use of private funds to cover operational costs of a pilot shuttle could increase the possibility of a future DASH service or show the viability of a private shuttle service.
Strategy 5¡C
Conclusion
44
CONCLUSION The main contribution of this project is to provide a list of concise and actionable strategies that go beyond Q Conditions to ensure that policy and planning decisions take into consideration the community as a whole and issues of social justice. Often, community members negotiate with developers on a range of community benefits for a specific real estate project as a cost of doing business in a neighborhood. This approach takes into account the City’s limited capacity to contribute to necessary improvements if it does not have local tax revenues to fund them and takes advantage of a private developer’s interest in building. This approach can be viewed as a win-win for both the developers and the community. From a developer’s perspective, it is helpful to understand community priorities. However, fulfilling community needs with private development funds comes with a price tag and community members should understand the tradeoffs that come with advocacy. On the next page is the LA-Más Checklist for Elysian Valley. It synthesizes the changes the community wishes to see. Developers should be leveraged to bring into the community the much-needed improvements in our checklist. For LA-Más, the next phase of this project is to focus on how to carry out specific strategies. We will develop, in summer 2015 pending funding availability, prototypes that can inform public policy while engaging community residents. But most importantly, we believe the responsibility for holistic community development rests on government entities and the ability for community entities to organize around specific interests.
COMMUNITY CHECKLIST
46
The Physical Form for New Developments
BUILD TO A HEIGHT THAT IS NO MORE THAN 36 FEET OR THREE FLOORS BREAK UP THE MASSING IN NEW BUILDINGS AND KEEP THE DENSITY LOW STEP BACK BUILDING FAÇADES ON THE SIDES, ESPECIALLY IF ADJACENT BUILDINGS ARE RESIDENTIAL REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY, BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE WORTH PRESERVING
Conclusion
CREATE VIEW CORRIDORS AND PUBLIC PATHWAYS TO THE RIVER PATH.
*The Programming of Service for the Community
PRIORITIZE CURRENT RESIDENTS IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SET ASIDE AFFORDABLE UNITS (BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF A FOURTH FLOOR TO NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) PROVIDE FREE WI-FI IN PUBLIC SPACES ESTABLISH PUBLIC RESTROOMS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT DISCOUNTED RENT FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES
*All of these services require ongoing operational funds.
A frequently updated community wish list can also be found at the website for the Elysian Valley Neighborhood Watch.
47
ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING RETAIL THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND CULTURALLY SENSITIVE SUPPORT COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR A FRESH FOODS PROVIDER (NEIGHBORHOOD OR FARMER’S MARKET) ADVOCATE FOR A COMMUNITY ART GALLERY THAT CAN PROVIDE ART CLASSES AND SHOWCASE LOCAL ART HIRE LOCALLY, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
KEEP THE ARTS ALIVE – SUPPORT THE FROGTOWN ARTWALK AND PARTNERS OF DORRIS MAINTAIN OUR GREEN SPACES – SUPPORT THE JARDIN DEL RIO & ELYSIAN VALLEY COMMUNITY GARDENS
ENRICH OUR SENIOR SERVICES – SUPPORT THE ELYSIAN VALLEY RECREATION CENTER SENIOR CENTER EXPAND OUR LEARNING CENTERS – SUPPORT THE LIBRARY AT ELYSIAN VALLEY UNITED & DORRIS PLACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
A review of project approvals by the Environmental & Land Use Committee also provides insights on encouraged development parameters.
Conclusion
SUSTAIN OUR YOUTH PROGRAMS – SUPPORT THE MARSH STREET SKATE PARK
The Existing Community Assets
49
Appendix
APPENDIX
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
50
The following is a glossary of organizations and sites involved in the project: • BLOX – A project developed by FSY Architects named for the street intersection – Blake and Knox – that will be home to the architectural firm, local retail, and live/work spaces. This site was a part of the walking tour for Workshop 2. • CIVIC ENTERPRISE – An award-winning planning and development firm focused on creating projects that are community-oriented, and sustainable. LA-Más hired Mott Smith, co-founder and principal, to serve as a project consultant. • CLOCKSHOP – a multifaceted arts organization that produced Frogtown Futuro, run by Julia Meltzer. • COUNCIL DISTRICT 13 (CD13) – This government office, led by our local elected official, represents the Elysian Valley neighborhood. The office of Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell attended the majority of our workshops.
Appendix
• DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING (DCP) – This government department regulates land use. DCP staff is leading the effort to change the Q Conditions for Elysian Valley. • ELYSIAN VALLEY ARTS COLLECTIVE (EVAC) – This non-profit organization represents the creative community and organizes the much-anticipated annual Frogtown Artwalk. • ELYSIAN VALLEY COMMUNITY GARDEN (EVCG) – This privately owned community garden is home to more than 30 plots. Cyndi Hubach, garden manager, also owns the Blake Lofts, a live/work space, across the street. EVCG hosted Workshop 1. • ELYSIAN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH (EVNW) – This community organization meets monthly on any topic relevant to its stakeholders. EVNW was established and run by longtime community member David De La Torre. Workshop 5 was co-hosted with the EVNW. • ELYSIAN VALLEY RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL (EVRNC) – This City-certified local organization consists of community-elected board members that manage the allocation of $37,000 annually for community benefit. The EVRNC adopted recommendations for Q Conditions that were shared during Workshop 6.
• ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND USE COMMITTEE (ELU) – This subcommittee of the Elysian Valley Riverside Neighborhood Council provides advice and oversight to issues pertaining to real estate developments and land use policy.
51
• ELYSIAN VALLEY UNITED COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER (EVU) – The longest-standing non-profit in the community currently runs a LAUSD continuation high school. Located in a former sweatshop, EVU is the oldest community organization in the Elysian Valley and hosted Workshop 6. • FRAMATIC – A family run ready-to-use photo frame manufacturer, Framatic, has called Elysian Valley home for nearly three decades. Business and property owners, David and Edwina Dedlow hosted Workshop 3 and allowed us to use their story to create a speculative case study for potential development in the community. • FROGTOWN FUTURO – In the Spring of 2014, Clockshop hosted a program with discussions, screenings, and workshops that explored the potential impacts of both river and community redevelopment.
• ELYSIAN – Opened in 2014 as a restaurant run by Chef David Thorne, Elysian is also home of Clockshop. • TRACY A. STONE ARCHITECT & GRAIN SURFBOARD – Since 2003, this site is home to the first official live/work unit in the community. Tracy Stone and Allen Anderson, also founders of the Elysian Valley Arts Collective, hosted the beginning of the walking tour in their courtyard for Workshop 2.
Appendix
• LA-MÁS - A non-profit community design firm that works across Los Angeles and is based in Elysian Valley. The mission of LA-Más is to look critically at systemic problems in the Los Angeles area and provide solutions based on research and community engagement.
URBAN PLANNING AND RELATED DEFINITIONS
52
• ADAPTIVE REUSE – Describes the renovation of old buildings for a purpose other than their original use. A popular example in the neighborhood is the conversion of an old warehouse into live/work spaces. • BICYCLE PARKING ORDINANCE – A Los Angeles City Council ordinance approved in January 2014 that increases the number of bicycle parking spaces required in new developments and defines acceptable locations for bicycle parking. • BUILDING HEIGHT – The vertical distance of a building, from the lowest point on the ground to the highest building elevation point, describes the building height. It is usually expressed in feet or number of floors.
Appendix
• BUILDING USE – Determines what type of structure can be built on a property and its intended purpose. The function of the building needs official approval from the City and needs to be in accordance with the zoning. The current use allowed for CM-zoned properties in Elysian Valley is unclear. In some cases 100% residential is not permitted. In other cases, 100% commercial is not permitted. • COMMERCIAL/MANUFACTURING ZONE (CM ZONE) – A specified land-use designation that allows for properties in Elysian Valley to have activities related to wholesale, storage, retail, office, light industrial, and other uses. It is important to note that the CM Zone in Elysian Valley is broad enough that residential use is currently allowed. Changes to Q Conditions have the potential of changing the ratio of residential use permitted in comparison to commercial use. • DENSITY BONUS – Density refers to the mass of a building, also known as the FAR. A density bonus is one of many incentives developers are entitled to under zoning regulations when they set aside units as affordable housing. The density bonus allows developers to build more units than would be allowed otherwise based on existing zoning. • FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) – Describes the size and volume of a building. FAR is the total square footage of all the floors of a building, divided by the total square footage of the lot it is on. The greater the FAR, the bigger the building. • GRANNY FLATS - A term that describes accessory dwelling units or converted garages converted to residential units, currently permitted in Los Angeles, but under strict requirements that make them very expensive to be permitted. • LIVE/WORK UNIT – Describes a building used by a tenant for two purposes, to live and to work. The work space could include a commercial office or an art studio.
• PARKING REQUIREMENTS – Relates to the requirements of property space to be dedicated for parking. Currently, parking requirements vary by building use and does not allow for bicycle parking to be used in place of car parking.
53
• NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES RIVERFRONT DISTRICT VISION PLAN & ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (VPEDIS) – A federally funded vision plan finalized in May 2014 after a series of community workshops focused on five communities adjacent to the Los Angeles River. • NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES RIVERFRONT DISTRICT - Approach to Sustainable Economic Development - A follow up addendum to VPEDIS published in January 2015 that highlights implementation strategies for economic development goals, some of which is included in proposed strategies (but specific to Elysian Valley). • NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES RIVERFRONT COLLABORATIVE – A cross-sector collaborative led by the City of Los Angeles to lead the creation of the VPEDIS. LA-Más was a hired to support the engagement process and the creation of the plan.
• SB1818 STATE LAW – This California State Law took effect in 2005 with the intent of creating more affordable housing in the state. The law requires local government to encourage the building of affordable units with incentives such as height and FAR bonuses or reduced parking requirements if developers set aside at least 5% of their units as affordable for 30 years. As of 2014, three projects are taking advantage of this law in Elysian Valley - 2990 Allesandro Street, 1849 Blake Avenue, and 1901 Blake Avenue. • SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION – This City ordinance was passed in 2005 with the intent to create more affordable housing by allowing for properties to be divided into smaller lots, no smaller than 1,500 square feet, for residential use. In Elysian Valley, the average residential lot can be divided into four new homes. • SILVER LAKE/ECHO PARK/ELYSIAN VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN - A plan adopted in 2011 that governs the growth of three communities in northeast LA, in which Q Conditions are an element in the process of being updated. • ZONING – City regulations describing what properties can be used for.
Appendix
• INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE – A policy tool that must be approved by the City Council to create a temporary moratorium on development (45 days to 2 years), often used when existing development regulations need to be updated to match market demand.
WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS
54
The six workshops took place between October and December and were arranged in different locations around the neighborhood. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the events. For a more detailed account of each workshop, please visit www.mas.la/futuro under Workshops. WORKSHOP 1: COMMUNITY SPACES | OCTOBER 10, 2014 - Looking to better understand community gathering spaces in the Elysian Valley neighborhood, the LAMás team worked with neighbors to discuss the qualities and uses of local spaces, their classifications, and how these spaces, as well as local citizens, could create urban change. The approach featured four feedback-gathering stations that asked participants about successful existing spaces, how spaces can be improved, how public uses can be built on private land, and how to grow an ecosystem of community spaces.
Appendix
During the process, community members highlighted the success of the Los Angeles River Greenway, expressed their desire for longer operating hours for existing parks, and shared their interest in a variety of retail services not available in the community, including a fresh food market, a barbershop, and a coffee shop. WORKSHOP 2: LIVE/WORK + ADAPTIVE REUSE | OCTOBER 15, 2014 - The primary goal of Workshop 2 was to inform and better understand the community’s perspective on two popular development alternatives: adaptive reuse and Live/Work spaces. Visiting such spaces in the neighborhood, the workshop explored how they are being constituted and discussed new iterations that can expand the definition of live/work to benefit more people in the community. Participants communicated their desire to create a path to legalization for informal spaces where people currently work and live. They also highlighted the need for services targeted to the longer-term and lower income populations. WORKSHOP 3: THE TWO MAKERS | OCTOBER 29, 2014 - The goal of the Two Makers workshop was to explore the range of use and physical possibilities for neighborhood properties, thus encouraging participants to share their preferences. The second goal was to inform a discussion on the real estate development process with economic realities related to project risk, funding feasibility, and policy processes. Ultimately, participants agreed that multi-story, dense affordable housing is not desirable to the community unless it is able to benefit the current resident population. WORKSHOP 4: THROWING OUT THE RULES OF THE GAME | NOVEMBER 13, 2014 Workshop 4 encouraged participants to forget the existing policies that shape places and instead engage community members’ aspirations with regard to housing, density, and growth. By discussing a wide range of housing alternatives, the LA-Más team was
able to better understand the priorities of the community and to connect them to the citywide concerns for density and housing demand in Los Angeles. Instead of building on the narrative that “we can stop change�, the team asked people how and where they wanted change to further understand their thresholds.
55
Participants agreed that a mixture of solutions is necessary, with the understanding that some blocks in the neighborhood should remain the same, while other blocks can accommodate growth. Within the community, the driving desire for affordable housing is to enable longtime renters, many of whom are working class and seniors, to remain in the community. The further legalization of granny flats and converted garages had stronger support for channeling housing demand, as did the need for critical infrastructural improvements accompanying housing construction. WORKSHOP 5: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES | DECEMBER 13, 2014 - The primary goal of the Transportation Alternatives Workshop was to explore the full range of transportation issues in the neighborhood, present potential solutions for specific problems, and to untangle assumptions and confusion regarding transportation and congestion.
WORKSHOP 6: Q CONDITIONS | DECEMBER 16, 2014 - The primary goal of the sixth and final workshop was to explore the potential for new Q Conditions to address future projects in the commercial and manufacturing parts of Elysian Valley. In accordance with the goal of Futuro de Frogtown, the workshop focused on the distinction between change that happens through market forces or drive by government, outside the control of residents, and the various approaches to addressing community concerns within the Q Conditions. Overall, there was a consensus that the Q Conditions need to be changed to better represent the interests of the community. Many recognized that the Q Conditions are a limitation and that many concerns will have to be addressed through other means. Suggestions included exploring a land trust model, programs to prepare current residents for the affordable housing lottery, and support for local residents to start or formalize businesses. Supporting the adaptive reuse of commercial uses appealed to participants as a strategy to incentivize local job creation and keep density low. Workshop Materials
Appendix
Workshop 5 revealed that public transit does not serve the community well and leaves residents with few mobility options. Group suggestions included creating a DASH line that could potentially build off of the existing Lincoln/Cypress station, enhanced pedestrian/ bicycle access to the Gold Line station, and more frequent and reliable service from the Metro Bus 96 and 603 lines. Residents also communicated their fear of even more limited street parking with increased population density, potentially exacerbating traffic congestion given the high number of dead end streets along the L.A. River.
REFERENCES
56
About O’Reilly Media. (2014) O’Reilly Media, Inc. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from http://www.oreilly.com/about/index.html Bates, LK. (2013, May 18). Gentrification and Displacement Study: Implementing an Equitable Inclusive Development Strategy in the Context of Gentrification. Commissioned by City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/ article/454027 Los Angeles Department of City Planning. (2005). Silver Lake - Echo Park - Elysian Valley Community Plan. (Part of the General Plan- City of Los Angeles). Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://planning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/ SlkCPTXT.pdf Florida, R. (2002, April 30). The Rise of The Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Appendix
Jao, C. (2014, May 28). Feds Okay 1 Billion Los Angeles River Project. KCET.ORG Retrieved February 2, 2015, from http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/lariver/confluence/arbor-study/feds-okay-1billion-los-angeles-river-project.html Jao, C. (2014, October 9). Elysian Valley Residents Push for Smart Growth. KCET.ORG Retrieved February 2, 2015, from http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/ lariver/confluence/river-notes/elysian-valley-residents-push-for-smart-growth. html Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2014, November 21). A Network of Community Spaces. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/ community-spaces Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2014, November 21). Live/Work + Adaptive/Reuse. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/ livework-adaptivereuse Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2014, November 25). The Two Makers. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/the-two-makers Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2014, November 26). Throwing Out the Rules of the Game. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/ throwing-out-the-rules-of-the-game
Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2014, December 17). Transportation Alternatives. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/transportationalternatives Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2015, January 7). Q Conditions. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/q-conditions-2
57
Leung, H., & Lamadrid, M. (2015, January 20). Community Open Houses. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.mas.la/futuro/workshops/communityopen-houses Phillips, D., Flores, J., & Henderson, J. Causa Justa: Just Cause. (2014, April 7). Development without Displacement: Resisting Gentrification in the Bay Area. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://cjjc.org/images/development-withoutdisplacement.pdf Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2005, May 9). SB 1818- State Density Bonus Law Interim Guidelines. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://cityplanning. lacity.org/code_studies/housing/SB%201818%20-%20INTERIM%20 GUIDELINES.pdf
Sahagun, L. (2014, May 28). Army Corps to Recommend $1-Billion L.A. River Project. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on February 2, 2015 from http://www.latimes. com/science/la-me-la-river-approval-20140529-story.html Leading the Maker Movement. (2014). Maker Media Inc. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from http://makermedia.com Plan Re:Code. (2014, December 16). Zoning Code Evaluation Report 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2015 from http://recode.la/sites/default/files/file_attachments/ basic_page/Zoning_Code_Evaluation_Report-FINAL-Dec16.pdf Department of Cultural Affairs (2014). Private Percent for Art Program. Retrieved January 28, 2015 from http://www.culturela.org/publicart/privatepercent.html
Appendix
Moore, G. (2007, April). Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works and Bureau of Engineering. Retrieved January 18, 2015 from http://boe.lacity.org/lariverrmp/CommunityOutreach/ pdf/LARRMP_Final_05_03_07.pdf http://boe.lacity.org/lariverrmp/
TO CITE THIS DOCUMENT: LEUNG, HELEN AND MARIA LAMADRID. (2015). FUTURO DE FROGTOWN REPORT. RETRIEVED FROM: HTTP://WWW.MAS.LA/FUTURO
WWW.MAS.LA/FUTURO