The city planning commission today voted to endorse developer Atlas Capital’s plans to put a large project along Spring Street in Chinatown, provided it include some affordable units.
“There’s a citywide need [for affordable housing], and we need to start solving that with every project that’s built,” said commissioner Renee Dake Wilson.
As proposed, the College Station project would include 725 market-rate units, no affordable units, almost 900 parking spaces, and retail space including a large grocery store—all directly across the street from the Chinatown Gold Line station.
College Station project has been in the works for years, undergoing some minor and major changes over time. The project already has several approvals from the city that were acquired when it was under different ownership.
Now Atlas Capital is asking for a few new approvals, including a general plan amendment that would change the site’s zoning to allow for residential uses.
Commissioners voted to approve the project’s requested approvals, including the general plan amendment, on the condition that 5 percent of the apartments at College Station be designated for very low-income households.
Supporters of College Station who spoke at the commission meeting were happy to see density close to the Gold Line station and eager to have a new large supermarket in the neighborhood. They were glad to see what is now a vacant lot transformed into shops and much-needed housing.
“We need to take every opportunity to build new housing and to build it at all levels,” Councilmember Gil Cedillo, whose district includes the project site, told the audience and commissioners. The city’s housing crisis “cannot be resolved by not building,” he said.
Housing was also on the minds of those who opposed the project. Commissioners and members of the public who spoke against College Station took issue with the total lack of on-site affordable housing the developer proposed.
Especially of concern was the effect that a large, market-rate project would have on the predominately low-income and working class neighborhood, where nearly 60 percent of residents are already paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income toward rent.
“I’m very concerned about the development of 725 market-rate units in Chinatown without any on-site affordable housing,” commissioner Dana Perlman said.
A number of residents of the area expressed the fear that by creating new units that people living in the neighborhood would not be able to afford, College Station would virtually push out existing Chinatown residents.
Atlas Capital doesn’t have a legal obligation to include affordable housing on the site, says a rep for the planning department. And because College Station was approved in 2012, it is not subject to Measure JJJ. The voter-approved measure mandates that affordable housing be included in projects seeking general plan amendments.
Project representative Jerry Neuman of DLA Piper told the commission that, in the firm’s outreach to the community, residents said they didn’t want more affordable housing, so they didn’t consider including it.
Touted as both a substitute for the on-site inclusion of affordable housing and as an instance of Atlas Capital being a “good neighbor” is an agreement that the developer entered into with councilmember Cedillo to subsidize rents at a neighboring apartment building, which it doesn’t own.
Tenants at Metro at Chinatown Senior Lofts, an affordable apartment complex for seniors, were facing a rent increase that, while small on paper, would have been devastating to the residents, most of whom live on fixed incomes.
To help keep people in their homes, Cedillo stepped in to broker a deal in which Atlas Capital would cover the rent increase for the rest of 2018. The developer also agreed to cover the increase for the next 10 years, provided that College Station was approved.
A number of Chinatown organizations, including Chinatown Community for Equitable Development, have spoken out against the deal, which they see as effectively forcing residents to support a project in order to maintain their housing. The agreement, reached privately between the developer and Cedillo, is not enforceable by the city; its success depends on the developer keeping its word.
Ultimately, the commissioners did not accept the Metro Lofts agreement as a stand-in for on-site affordable housing in College Station.
The planning commission’s decision still needs to go before the city’s planning and land use committee as well as the full council before it is final.
- Chinatown’s huge College Station development slowly moving forward [Curbed LA]
- 300 Seniors In Chinatown Escape Steep Rent Hike, But What About Everyone Else? [LAist]
Comments
Next headline "Metro & LA city Council approve the Musk subway tunnels"—only if he allows homeless to sleep in them…
By Millennial Entropy on 12.14.18 1:58am
With enough exits and HVAC, I think this would solve the homeless problem. No problems finding property.
Suggest it to him.
By Bubba10 on 12.14.18 7:40am
They should add 40 stories on top of this.
By ivantrotsky on 12.14.18 8:44am
The neighborhood shot down the taller (22 story I believe)version of the project, that included subsidized senior housing.
By RXBXUXNX on 12.14.18 10:59am
"A number of residents of the area expressed the fear that by creating new units that people living in the neighborhood would not be able to afford, College Station would virtually push out existing Chinatown residents."
Morons. A derelict and crumbling old Chinese restaurant sat on this site. This development only adds housing supply, which helps relieve pressure on rents, albeit indirectly.
But nope! ‘If I can’t have it, nobody can have it! Nobody is allowed to have more than me!’
By MMVic on 12.14.18 2:20pm
Developer wants to build lots more housing on a dirt lot. Government and activists want to impede increasing the supply. And whose to blame for the housing shortage?
By LADude on 12.14.18 2:59pm
The problem is a shortage of affordable housing options. There is no shortage of luxury apartments in Los Angeles. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/downtown-l-a-starts-to-mirror-manhattan-with-glut-of-apartments
By floating lips on 12.14.18 3:26pm
What is a "luxury" apartment? I get the impression that it is any apartment that is rented to the non-indigent.
By Seth Borman on 12.14.18 10:34pm
Good question. It really is a matter of advertising. As all apartments are equal till you look at the amenities and the rental rate. In the case of the Atlas Capital College Station apartments they will rent for as high as $5000.00 a month. For you this may be a pittance to pay per month. But for most working class people they will be unable to pay this sky high rent. In fact most Californians are paying more than 45% of their wages towards rent. When you look at the lower wage earners they pay upwards of 60% of thier wages towards rent. Los Angeles needs to have the diversity of workers to continue economic growth. Housing is a crucial aspect of this. Creating a will to build more affordable housing projects should be our top priority as citizens. Right now the will seems to be to build $5000.00 per month apartment complexes that will sit empty or worse. This is connected to greasing the wheel here in L.A. You have the grease they will provide you the wheel. See; https://www.ocregister.com/2018/02/15/california-rent-rates-have-risen-to-some-of-the-nations-highest-heres-how-that-impacts-residents/
By floating lips on 12.15.18 10:07am
If you care about adding to housing supply, read a book about basic economics and learn about supply and demand. I can see you want to do good, but your economic ignorance is keeping you from understanding how this all works.
Affordable units are not profitable for developers to build with new construction, high labor costs, and the million regulations they have to observe. But when luxury units are built, they relieve pressure on the market. People in current high-end units may move up into the luxury units. People in a lower rent bracket may move into the next ‘level’ of apartment. Rents adjust based on the demand for each type. And at the bottom end of the scale, people slowly vacate the oldest and cheapest housing stock and move into the next level up. But the only way this happens is with a drastic increase in supply – no matter the type.
And if you think it’s only people in very wealthy neighborhoods opposing additional housing, look at Inglewood, where middle and working-class single family homeowners oppose nearby apartment construction because they don’t want too much ‘traffic.’ Even with this Chinatown development, residents opposed a higher tower here because they thought it would change the ‘character’ of their neighborhood. That’s simply code for not wanting a certain type of person moving in, and also not wanting traffic.
By MMVic on 12.16.18 12:45pm
RE: Suppy and Demand comment: Markets operating on their own cannot and will not adjust on their own as you indicate with the trickle up theory you present regarding luxury apartments.This was made clear in the early 1990’s when the world markets collapsed.
I have met architects that would love to work on affordable housing apartment building designs. Some of them are brilliant at taking limited resources and turning out well thought out buildings. So I do not accept your argument about profitbility and affordable housing. Look at Meta Housing they are a low income builder and make hundreds of millions of dollars. Your statement is not true, but I can see why people, especially developers might say this over and over again, as they build their luxury apts.
With smart developers coupled with smart architects this problem of affordable housing can be solved in L.A. There has to be a will from the people to make this happen. A meeting between architects and developers so the vision can be seen then realized should be set up by the city of L.A. so we can solve these problems. The idea that building luxury apartments is going to solve L.A.s problems is preposterous!
By floating lips on 12.16.18 4:46pm
It is not preposterous – as Balmung noted below, the more supply there is, the more it ceases to be "luxury." There is indeed a trickle down.
Micro-units are one of the only things can be produced cheaply, because many of them can be crammed into a small area (land/space is yet another commodity that is limited – once again – supply and demand). The trouble is, many of the people who need low income housing can’t use them due to family size.
But you said it correctly at least in one sense – there has to be a will from the people to make this happen. This is called demand. People are not demanding new construction of micro units. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like a massive 3 bedroom unit for cheap enough to afford on one minimum wage part time income, but unfortunately the supply of labor, land, and materials cannot meet that demand.
By MMVic on 12.16.18 6:09pm
You’re being so much more diplomatic than I could manage.
By CaliSon on 12.17.18 11:21am
The construction of every single one of Meta Housing’s developments are subsidized by government funds (from multiple different sources). Same thing with every other affordable housing developer in the area.
It’s not that "luxury housing" will solve all of L.A. problems – no amount of housing development will solve all of L.A. problems. But every single luxury housing development means the people moving in there are not moving into existing housing and bidding-up rents.
But the problem that we have is that the building of all types of housing has been restricted for decades and at this point, we need more of everything. So when you say this problem can be solved just by matching "smart developers with smart architects", it’s a laughable position to take. This problem is way bigger than that and the only way to "solve" it (however you define that) is just to build, build and build. That’s how every previous housing shortage has been solved.
By I Like Buildings on 12.17.18 1:00pm
At some point there will be an oversupply of "luxury housing" and when everything is luxury hosing, none of it is luxury.
By Balmung on 12.16.18 4:22pm
There’s already an oversupply of "luxury housing" in DTLA; however, they are surrrounded by very unluxury things like mentally ill drug addicts accosting people for drug money and deficating all over..with basically ZERO enforcement unlike other civilized cities..
By Millennial Entropy on 12.17.18 2:03pm
The article makes it clear that "market-rate" is not "affordable" in L.A., but if the supply isn’t expanded, how is the price supposed to come down assuming demand remains high? A smattering of "affordable" units doesn’t bring the overall price of rent down. It is only beneficial to those lucky lottery winners that wind up in those few units. You’re essentially rationing low-rent housing. How could that situation EVER possibly provide consistent housing for those with low incomes?
By iONu on 12.15.18 10:48pm
Your point makes sense. My point is that one is part of the problem or part of the solution. I am not saying this is THE solution. I am saying this is part of a solution. The builder initially wanted to build apartments for teachers and the middle class. He was urged on by a few people that felt Chinatown needed $5000.00 a month apartments. He changed his design idea to luxury apartments. Chinatown needs a master plan for how development will take place there. A coalition of developers needs to be put together to address the needs overall in L.A. Right now the piece meal approach of whoever has the money can start building is a bad way to be smart about urban growth. Maybe there is a master plan? Is there?
By floating lips on 12.16.18 8:25am
"Chinatown needs a master plan for how development will take place there." It does. It’s called a Community Plan and is only about a year old after outreach to the community for the previous 3 years. And the community said it didn’t want high rises or affordable housing at this location. They wanted shorter building to preserve the views of the surrounding neighborhood and no affordable housing because Chinatown is already the area in the city with the most units restricted by income. So the neighbors want market-rate units to help attract people that have disposable income to spend in all the businesses in Chinatown.
Then you go on to complain about the "piece meal approach" to develop but what you’re describing is the private property system this entire country uses. It’s not a perfect system but it’s way better than having government run development projects. We already had that – they were called Redevelopment Agencies – and they were a disaster in Los Angeles.
By I Like Buildings on 12.17.18 1:09pm
It would be better if pre-thought plans were set into place vs. this piece meal approach. We are a young country and planning how the neighborhood grows, integrates and looks is essential for solving urban demands as well as encourage economic growth. Yes there were some people that wanted as you say in Chinatown-that is why architects, urban planners and developers need to come together to discuss best solutions. The way it is going is not the best way to approach growth.
By floating lips on 12.25.18 12:00pm
Whats the sense when the ’ affordable ’ units are filled up right away with older Russian immigrants while Americans who have worked and paid taxes all their lives sleep in their cars…I have watched this for 26 years in West Homelesswood..
By ByeByeLA on 12.16.18 3:15pm
How do you know that these "Russian immigrants" are not American citizens at this point? And once they are American citizens, country of origin doesn’t matter. So you’re really complaining about one set of American citizens getting a benefit that other American citizens are not getting and doing it in a particularly racist way.
By I Like Buildings on 12.17.18 1:12pm
It doesn’t matter if they’re citizens now, or not.
Immigrants aren’t supposed to be, or become, a burden on the taxpayers.
By smartalex on 12.18.18 10:23am
OK, thanks for the response because I at least now understand what the underlying complaint is but I still think the complaint is utter bullshit. An immigrant who becomes a citizen is a citizen, not some second-class citizen who doesn’t get the benefits of citizenship.
By I Like Buildings on 12.18.18 12:32pm