The City Council’s planning and land use committee on Tuesday approved the College Station project in Chinatown, but left out a contentious element—affordable housing.
In December, the city’s planning commission backed the developer’s plans to erect a five-building apartment and retail complex with 725 units on the condition that it include 5 percent affordable housing, the equivalent of 37 units for very low-income families.
That decision was supported by city planning staffers, but at Tuesday’s hearing, Atlas Capital pushed back, and the committee sided with it, approving the project as a completely market-rate development.
“The project has no legal obligation to provide affordable units,” the developer’s representative, Kyndra Casper, told the committee. Casper also noted that no one would be displaced by the development, as it’s slated to go up on an empty site at College and Spring streets, just east of the Chinatown Gold Line station.
Councilmember Gil Cedillo, whose district includes Chinatown, Highland Park, Lincoln Heights, and Westlake, acknowledged on Tuesday the citywide need for affordable housing, but said he was doing more than his part to help the city meet its goals.
Last years, councilmembers each pledged to build 222 units of permanent supportive housing in their districts, and Cedillo’s already has 676 units in the pipeline.
“We’re at 300 percent of the goals all of us agreed to,” Cedillo told the committee. (He also lightly chastised two other committee members, councilmembers Greig Smith and Bob Blumenfield, who represent areas that so far have zero and 13 units in the works, respectively.)
“We need it all,” Cedillo said of affordable units in general. “And I’m proud to receive it, but we don’t need it all in my district.”
A group of activists and neighborhood residents have consistently pushed back against the project because of its high number of market-rate apartments, which they see as hastening gentrification in the neighborhood. The development’s lack of housing for the neighborhood’s existing residents, most of whom are low-income, working class, and highly rent burdened, was also a target for criticism.
A number of community members who spoke out against the project Tuesday said that 37 very low-income units was too few. One speaker demanded that the project be built with 100 percent affordable housing.
The committee also denied three appeals to the project brought by the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Labor International Union Local 300, and the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development, a labor group.
The appeals largely hinged on a handful of environmental issues with the site, including soil contamination, that the appellants said were downplayed or ignored in the environmental review of the project.
Final approval sits with the full City Council.
Comments
This is really frustrating to read about. It’s hard enough to get an affordable apartment with a decent job. I can’t believe they are going to build 700+ units and not one of them will be cheaper.
They should really make these mega apartment buildings have at least 20-30% affordable units for low income families.
By iamsnowbear on 03.20.19 2:28pm
I agree, but if they did that no developer would ever build anything. hopefully just adding more market rate housing will help ease the larger problem, but that could take a long time.
By john silvers on 03.20.19 3:14pm
They are building 700 additional units that will compete on price with existing units and landlords. If they aren’t asking for any density bonuses, they don’t need to set aside any affordable units. At this level of density and in this location, I’d hardly call them "luxury" units.
Really, that it is rare a project is being built WITHOUT affordable unit density bonuses is a testament to how successful those programs are.
By Greyvagabond on 03.20.19 5:16pm
The Affordable Housing they are talking about have very low income limits. You wouldn’t qualify for one if you had a ‘decent job’
By RXBXUXNX on 03.21.19 5:38pm
More reason to cheat the system when you can. The rich don’t play fair so why are we all playing fair?
By djfourmoney on 03.25.19 12:26pm
Hell yes! Finally a developer pushed back against the ridiculous requirements imposed by the City. They are adding 725 units of housing during a severe housing shortage and are doing their part to reduce rental costs by adding supply.
By LADude on 03.20.19 2:56pm
This is exactly what I thought. Finally a developer is pushing back on something that’s not legally required. And good for Cedillo for pushing back as well.
This blanket expectation that every new development must have affordable housing is not supported by law. If the community wants affordable housing then the community should provide it, not foist the responsibility onto private citizens.
By CaliSon on 03.20.19 4:43pm
I think it’s even simpler than that: remind people that developers have a CHOICE between a smaller all market-rate apartment project or a bigger project that has both more market-rate units as long as affordable units are also included. In other words, the City incentives a developer to build affordable housing units but can’t force that decision upon the developer.
For this particular project, it’s easy to see why a developer that is already building a monster of a project with 725 units wouldn’t want to go even bigger. At some point, the project just gets too big. Plus, the earlier iteration of this project did have affordable housing but to make this project bigger required that it be taller and the neighborhood was adamant that they didn’t want a taller project in their neighborhood. So the developer listened to the neighborhood, made a shorter but smaller project, and now there won’t be affordable housing units included.
By I Like Buildings on 03.20.19 5:24pm
This is a really common unintended consequence of "neighborhood groups" that come in and demand everything out of a project. A developer will request some reasonable density bonuses or design review concessions, and in exchange have a really well-designed project with affordable housing and tons of community benefits like green space or good retail/entertainment components. "Tenants rights" groups or NIMBYs come in and slam the project, the developers, and any elected official who might be inclined to help this great new development happen.
Then, the developer says screw it, no good deed goes unpunished, and builds a bare-bones, all-market-rate, by-right building. So the neighbors torpedo a good project and get one they like even less simply by being obstinate and short-sighted. It’s very sad, especially for normal folks who don’t have hours and hours to waste ranting at a City Council meeting (sometimes about projects miles and miles from where they actually live!)
By Greyvagabond on 03.20.19 5:31pm
Affordable units were never part of the plan, project wasn’t subject to JJJ.
By LosFeliz$ean on 03.20.19 5:47pm
Interesting twist! So they do have a right to build with zero affordable, regardless.
By Greyvagabond on 03.21.19 9:54am
The original, taller plan back in 2014 (!) included a 100-unit senior housing component that is not included in this plan.
By I Like Buildings on 03.21.19 1:21pm
I was definitely impressed with Cedillo’s response, demonstrating he and his district are pulling their weight, and calling out the others who aren’t.
By disqusted on 03.21.19 3:17pm
Noticed your potshots at Alissa Walker on Curbed. You were completely out of line.
Not really surprised tho.
By LosFeliz$ean on 03.20.19 7:12pm
They weren’t potshots as they were in response to a post by her about her single family residence and she frequently responds to comments and has the ability to defend herself.
And she is by far and away the biggest hypocrite. She enjoys the standard of living of a single family residence but she advocates for radical policies that involve upzoning, density and livable streets. She expects everyone else to live in multi-family housing so people can live in walkable neighborhoods without cars, but then she herself wants to raise her family in a single family residence. When someone who is so radical they propose closing the 101 freeway from Hollywood to downtown in support of livable streets but then lives in a single family residence, they deserve to get called out for that.
By LADude on 03.21.19 9:37am
ConcernedCitizen1950: "AND FURTHERMORE THE MAR VISTA ROAD DIET IS BAD BECAUSE EVERYONE NEEDS A CAR TO GET AROUND!"
Target cashier: "So…uh…would you like your receipt, or no?"
By disqusted on 03.21.19 3:12pm
"Sir this an Arby’s."
By Greyvagabond on 03.21.19 3:54pm
Says the guy who lives in a single family residence. But, but, but… You are the reason why there is a lack of density to create the "livable" city that you whine about. But by all means, you get to live in your SFR while you demand that everyone else live in multi-family housing so you can have your livable city. Hypocrite.
By LADude on 03.21.19 4:59pm
"I’m game to compare carbon footprints anytime. Would love to have you join me for a day to see how I actually live my life."
By LosFeliz$ean on 03.21.19 5:24pm
The zoning on my parcel is the reason there isn’t more density. That’s the city’s fault, not mine. But that will change if they properly update the Hollywood Community Plan, or SB 50 or another similar bill passes, at which point the land value will spike and I can sell out for way more than I paid to a developer who will put more density here (assuming they get past the inevitable Silverstein lawsuit). That’s half the reason I bought this place. And in the mean time I actively support each and every tall development in my "backyard," so to speak. So not only will I help be responsible for more density, but I’ll make money in the process. Win-win. And you’ll still be angry about bike lanes.
By disqusted on 03.21.19 7:29pm
This is in reply to you and LosFelizSean. It’s not about your individual carbon footprint, it’s about the carbon footprint of everyone else that has to live farther away because they can’t live where you live. How many people have to travel from out east (just look at the 10 freeway west in the morning and east in the evening) because of all of the jobs in West LA and SaMo but complete lack of density and housing in those areas.
I get that your SFR is zoned R-1 (i’ll get to that next) but Alissa Walker said her lot is zoned for 8 units. That means 7 families are not living there. Multiply that by every SFR in her neighborhood, and then by every SFR in the city. And that’s why there isn’t sufficient density for adequate public transportation or to support commercial businesses in each neighborhood within walking distance of the 7 times the number of people who could be living there. And Corner Soul always talks about how you need the density to generate sufficient property taxes to have sufficient money to build public transportation. Do you guys disagree with the premise of what I’m saying?
And while your SFR may be zoned R-1 that doesn’t make you not a hypocrite. It just means that you are taking advantage of the very zoning that you adamantly object to. You are supporting a system and lifestyle that your policy positions are opposed to.
By LADude on 03.22.19 8:41am
"And while your SFR may be zoned R-1 that doesn’t make you not a hypocrite. It just means that you are taking advantage of the very zoning that you adamantly object to."
This is your big whiff, which is all the more embarrassing given how hard you’re swinging for the fences. I own this place, not some NIMBY, which means when the time comes and the zoning changes, I’m perfectly happy to sell out to a developer for an end result of more density. I also do my best to counter-act the local NIMBYs by advocating for and supporting all of the new density in my neighborhood when it comes to stakeholder input, community planning meetings, and the like. Additionally, I actively support any proposed changes in the law that will upzone this parcel and my neighborhood generally.
The only potential for hypocrisy is if I were actively resisting any of these things, and I’m not. If you want the charge to stick, you have to point to some way in which I am serving as any kind of a roadblock or barrier to more density in my location, and you simply can’t do that.
You’re like a walking example of "Mister Gotcha." https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
By disqusted on 03.22.19 4:00pm
Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense."
Your entire post pretty much affirms your hypocrisy. You live in a single family residence but argue that since you promote policies that are anti-single family residence you are not a hypocrite. But that is exactly what makes you a hypocrite. Either move to multi-family housing so your lifestyle is consistent with the policies you want, or stop providing us with your irrelevant opinions.
And none of the examples in Mister Gotcha are in any way applicable here. If I were to argue that you live in housing that would be mister gotcha, what I am arguing is that you have a choice of housing and you chose to live in housing which is inconsistent with the policies you advocate for.
By LADude on 03.25.19 10:54am
Wanting a dense, walkable city and also wanting to live in an SFR are not mutually exclusive. I think most of the commenters here that are pro-density would be advocating for a mix of styles. LA can absolutely accommodate more density and still retain a variety of different living types.
I’m also surprised by your suggesting that people in SFRs enjoy a higher standard of living. There are a bunch of people in those towers downtown that are living a lot better than me, and there are a lot of people that don’t want to deal with the hassle of an SFR.
By CaliSon on 03.25.19 12:01pm
That depends doesn’t it? If got your SFR as apart of your parent’s estate but couldn’t afford it at market rates otherwise then I understand your post.
I don’t particularly concerned myself with how others are living possibly better than me. They are still losers with more money than common sense.
Standing in line for Dave’s Hot Chicken? C’mon..
By djfourmoney on 03.25.19 1:15pm