Comments
PLANNING WATCH - Never underestimate the power of the real estate lobby to push for planning policies that enrich them. To this end they cynically (mis)use liberal buzz-words – pro-housing and anti-racism -- in liberal cities like Los Angeles to camouflage zoning amendments that allow them to build highly profitable apartments in neighborhoods of single-family homes. For example, on September 27, 2024, LA’s City Planning Commission approved a complex ordinance that increased housing densities, mostly on commercial corridors.
This is not the full story, however, since the California State Legislature previously adopted statewide laws that allow homeowners or developers to construct three Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on parcels zoned for single-family homes. One ADU can be a stand-alone residential unit of 1,200 square feet, creating a de facto duplex. A second residential unit in the main house is capped at 500 square feet. The third ADU can be a small house on wheels in the backyard. These new ADU’s usually become an extra bedroom or market rate rental unit.
Despite false claims that homelessness is caused by a housing shortage, these ADU’s rarely become low-priced apartments for the homeless. Homelessness gets because upzoning raises the cost of housing. Combined with increasing economic inequality more people are priced out of housing.
In addition, California Senate Bill 9, also known as the California Home Act, allows a homeowner or developer to legally demolish a house, subdivide the lot, and build a duplex on each half. Four expensive rental units can now replace an older home.
The proposed amendments to LA’s 2021-2029 Housing Element automatically allow ministerial (automatic) and discretionary incentives, based on this summary table in City Planning’s Staff Report for amendments to the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
The Citywide Housing Incentive Program (CHIP) outlines procedures for reviewing housing projects under different incentive programs, which include both ministerial and discretionary incentives.
- State Density Bonus Program: Allows up to 4 incentives, including base and menu incentives. Public Benefit and non-menu incentives may require administrative approval, with larger projects needing additional waivers or discretionary review.
- Mixed Income Incentive Program: Also allows up to 4 incentives, with options for base, menu, and public benefit incentives. Up to 1 waiver may be granted.
- Affordable Housing Incentive Program: Offers up to 5 incentives, including public benefit options and up to 3 waivers. Projects needing more than 3 waivers require further review.
Each program has varying levels of review by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), administrative (ADM) processes, and discretionary decisions (DIR) appealable to the City Planning Commission (CPC).
These proposed amendments have been extremely polarizing, with extensive pressure for and against the amendment package. One side is led by the United Neighbors Coalition. It supports up-zoning on commercial corridors, but not residential neighborhoods. They have explained their stance in a detailed position paper, United Neighbors Vision Affordable House Study.
The other side includes Abundant Housing, California YIMBY, United Way, and the Los Angeles Times. They argue that the incentives described in the table above should apply to existing neighborhoods, not just commercial corridors.
Thus far the United Neighbors side has prevailed, but they have no illusions about the real estate industry’s continuing political pressure on City Hall. They realize that there are no permanent victories, and that developers and their allies will use every available lever so they can build apartments in existing residential neighborhoods.
To make sense of these contradictory forces, we need to consider the following:
Burst water main on Sunset, near UCLA.
First, LA’s infrastructure is old and urgently needs repairs. To allow more housing units, people, and cars in existing neighbors without upgrading infrastructure (e.g., streets, sidewalks, electricity, water, garbage collection) guarantees infrastructure failure. Furthermore, climate change also needs to be considered since the floods, fires, heatwaves, and storms it ushers in further strain aging infrastructure.
Second, LA’s adopted planning policies focus higher density residential development on the city’s commercial avenues/mass transit corridors. For example, the General Plan Framework’s Goal 3B for LA’s residential neighborhoods stresses preservation. It runs counter to locating apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods because they would not maintain the scale and character of existing development.
GOAL 3B: Preservation of the City's stable single-family residential neighborhoods.
Los Angeles is now at a crossroads. Will future high density residential development be located on commercial corridors served by mass transit, or will it be constructed in residential neighborhoods where it was not intended and where old infrastructure cannot support it.
(Dick Platkin is a retired LA city planner, who reports on local planning issues for CityWatchLA. He is a board member of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA). Previous columns are available at the CityWatchLA archives. Please send questions to [email protected].)
