• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

California’s great housing debate is back

Assembly members Richard Bloom and Phil Ting
Assembly members Richard Bloom and Phil Ting

Coronavirus suspended the movement to address Los Angeles and California’s massive housing shortage. Now, it’s back.

A state bill to allow residential development on commercially-zoned land across has cleared a vote in the Assembly. It was introduced in late February, just before the pandemic took hold.

AB 3107 would require cities and counties to allow developers to build housing on land designated only for commercial use. Assembly members Richard Bloom — whose district encompasses Los Angeles — and Phil Ting, who represents part of San Francisco, are its authors.

The bill, which just passed the Appropriations Committee, could open up scores of properties and sites for residential development up and down the state.

AB 3107 was designed as an incentive for municipalities to zone more land for residential development. The state’s Planning, Zoning and Development Law requires that counties and cities zone a certain amount of land for residential development, which is calculated primarily using population and housing needs in that jurisdiction.

Last year, the state passed a law tweaking minimum zoning requirements. Jurisdictions must now zone for enough housing to meet existing and future needs, instead of just future needs. The majority of California cities and towns are lagging on their housing targets, according government reports published late last year.

Only cities and counties that haven’t zoned enough land for housing would need to open up commercial properties for residential development, and they would be cleared of that obligation once they meet state requirements.
At least 20 percent of the units of a residential development built on commercial land would need to be set aside as affordable, under the bill.

There are several limitations on site eligibility, and commercial properties near factories would be off limits. A site is also ineligible for residential development if any adjacent property is used for warehousing, manufacturing or another industrial use.

A site would also only be eligible if about three quarters of its perimeter “adjoins parcels developed with urban uses.”

Developers would also be allowed to apply for density bonuses, like those available through L.A.’s Transit-Oriented Communities program.

The post California’s great housing debate is back appeared first on The Real Deal Los Angeles.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 04 June 2020
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
Community nonbank lenders are saving minority-owned businesses →← Simon Property Group sues Gap for $66M in unpaid rent
  • Recent Posts

    • ESG Kullen founding principal, affiliated California company allegedly stole millions, engaged in fraud: suit July 22, 2025
    • Los Angeles County sees drop in home sales amid long-term recovery July 22, 2025
    • Tech mogul-backed housing firm proposes first-of-its-kind affordable development July 22, 2025
    • Grubb Properties snags Hollywood Boulevard apartments for nearly $100M July 22, 2025
    • Gene Simmons’ former Benedict Canyon pad sells for $28M July 21, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • July 2025
      • June 2025
      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM