Current Issues

Zoning restrictions in Los Angeles often prevent the optimal use of land, limiting the density and type of housing that can be built. These limitations need to be reassessed to allow for more innovative and higher-density developments that can better meet the city's housing needs.

Senate Bill 8 (SB8) places additional regulations on housing developments, particularly affecting projects with six units and under. We believe that these regulations should be reconsidered to facilitate smaller-scale developments, which are crucial for increasing the housing supply in Los Angeles.

The ULA Mansion Tax, which imposes significant fees on high-value property transactions, creates financial burdens that can stifle new construction projects. We propose either removing this tax entirely or reducing the fee to make it more manageable. The current law makes it challenging to achieve profitability, which discourages new construction and ultimately reduces the number of new properties being built. This reduction in new builds negatively impacts tenants and residents by limiting housing availability and driving up costs.

Current LID regulations require developments of five units and up to comply with stringent environmental standards. We advocate for changing this threshold to seven units and above. This adjustment would make smaller developments more feasible and help increase the supply of housing.

The all-electric requirements present significant hurdles for new developments and delays with the Department of Water and Power (DWP). The push towards all-electric buildings increases construction costs and limits design flexibility. These requirements also create substantial project completion delays because developers can no longer use gas and must rely solely on electric power, which necessitates extensive adjustments to existing plans and infrastructure.

The green building code, which mandates the installation of electric vehicle chargers for every unit, adds significant complexity and cost to new developments. While we support environmental improvement efforts, these regulations present several challenges. Mandatory installation of electric vehicle chargers in every new unit is both time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, the existing electric infrastructure often cannot support the additional load, leading to delays as the DWP requires upgrades, such as increasing the system from 400 amps to 600 amps ( for 6 units and below). This back-and-forth process significantly extends project timelines and inflates costs. We propose a more reasonable requirement for the number of car chargers per building to better balance environmental goals with practical development considerations.

When the state implements changes and regulations, they often do so with a blanket approach for all of California. However, Los Angeles has unique needs that differ from other parts of the state. Regulations that may work in other areas of California might not be suitable for LA. It's crucial for the state to tailor rules specifically for Los Angeles to address its unique challenges and opportunities.

Changes in building regulations often favor large-scale developments, such as 100-unit buildings, without considering the impact on smaller projects. These rules can unintentionally harm smaller developers who build smaller properties. We advocate for a more balanced approach that supports developers of all sizes.

We aim to collaborate with the city to address current zoning limitations. Presently, the zoning code restricts the number of units we can build based on lot size. For example, on a 6,000 sq ft LARD 1.5 lot, we are limited to building 1,500 sq ft per unit, which restricts us to four units. If we could build 1,000 sq ft per unit, we could create six units. We urge the city to re-evaluate these limitations and provide more flexibility for builders to construct units that better meet the area's needs and demand.

Another critical issue is the designation of properties as residential or commercial. For example, if a duplex is expanded to include a third unit, it is reclassified as a commercial build. We propose that such expansions should still be considered a residential build, at least up to four units per structure, to avoid unnecessary complications and costs. Maintaining residential status for these smaller multi-family units would significantly support our efforts to provide affordable housing.