The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to encourage residential development in existing high-density residential areas and along commercial corridors, while leaving single-family neighborhoods largely untouched.
The City Council voted 15-0 to ask the city attorney to draft an ordinance to implement the plan, which would provide incentives for building both market-rate and affordable units. Once the ordinance is drafted, it will go back to council for final approval.
The rezoning effort is a response to the state’s housing mandate, which aims to ease the housing crisis by requiring cities to find land to build an additional 255,000 homes and develop plans by mid-February. It is.
Last month, a City Council committee approved a plan that would allow more buildings to be built along existing high-density residential areas and high streets in areas with workplaces and strong schools.
The plan could allow developers to exceed current limits on building in these areas if it includes a certain percentage of affordable units.
Incentives to build in single-family residential zones only apply if the property is owned by a public agency or faith-based organization, which represents only a small portion of the city’s single-family residential land. do not have.
The City Council approved the plan Tuesday after briefly debating whether to allow higher density housing in single-family neighborhoods. Some housing advocates argue that it is necessary to meaningfully reduce the economic and racial segregation that single-family zoning has helped maintain.
Homeowners groups oppose allowing apartments in the area, saying it would increase traffic and reduce homebuying opportunities.
City Councilmember Nitya Raman, who represents a district spanning from Silver Lake to Reseda, said she would like to build 100% affordable, mixed-income neighborhoods within some single-family neighborhoods near transit while limiting developers to small projects. A motion was filed to allow the construction of Price Apartments. Raman called this “gentle density.”
Although the plan was smaller than some supporters had asked for, City Council members voted 10-5 to reject it, opting to leave the single-family residential area largely untouched.
Cindy Chuvatal Keene, president of the Hancock Park Homeowners Association, hailed the decision as a “huge victory for all of us,” and said many area residents are working with the city to protect single-family homes while protecting the state. He pointed out that they have found a way to meet their housing obligations. neighborhood.
In a speech to his colleagues, Raman said that by not allowing more housing to be added to single-family neighborhoods, the city is encouraging overdevelopment in existing multifamily neighborhoods, resulting in existing apartment complexes being over-developed. He said it would be demolished and tenants would be evicted.
“What this plan is doing right now is putting a target on their backs,” Raman said of the tenants.
The Council has taken several steps to protect such individuals. The city attorney’s office on Tuesday proposed rules that would give low-income tenants evicted to make way for the development the right to receive a unit in a new building and expanded relocation assistance to help them buy a home while the project is under construction. It was approved to have it drafted.
Laura Raymond, director of the ACT-LA Coalition, praised these added protections, but said more steps need to be taken to preserve older housing covered by the city’s rent stabilization ordinance. he claimed.
He added in a statement that by rejecting Raman’s proposal to add more housing to single-family neighborhoods, the City Council missed a “golden opportunity” to meaningfully address the housing crisis and racism.
Some council members who voted against Raman’s proposal expressed interest in allowing more housing in single-family neighborhoods in the future, but wanted a more individualized approach.
“We want to continue the dialogue,” said City Councilman Bob Blumenfield, who represents the central San Fernando Valley. “But that’s a complicated question.”
Source link
