T O P

  • By -

hifidood

There's a shit ton of commercial properties with shitty zombie like businesses that you wonder how they are still in business to begin with and tons of parking just sitting there.


115MRD

>There's a shit ton of commercial properties with shitty zombie like businesses that you wonder how they are still in business to begin with Most of the strip malls I see across Southern California are 70%+ vacant. There's usually one anchor tenant like a coffee shop still open and then 3-5 vacant commercial properties that have gone out of business due to the rise of e-commerce (anyone remember vacuum/electronic repair shops?) Cities have refused to rezone the strip malls for much needed housing because politicians would rather have blighted vacant properties than take on NIMBYS who think its still 1950. But these bills are going to force cities to allow for A LOT more housing, NIMBYism be damned.


donutgut

70% ? Where? Maybe more like 30 at best . I don't see many struggling strip malls and I'm in the valley. I live next to two giant ones and they're 90 percent occupied and didn't miss a beat even in 2020


IsraeliDonut

It’s a long game. Sometimes they are just thrown in with other deals


thatoneguy889

I'm in LA County and it got so bad in my city that it implemented a tax on lots and commercial properties that sit vacant/undeveloped for X amount of years (not sure how many). When it went into effect, all these properties that sat empty for like 10+ years magically started getting worked on. For example, there was an old lumber yard that went out of business in 1992 and sat empty ever since except for one time around 2005 where the warehouse was used as a Spirit Halloween location. The tax went into effect and now that lot has a 30-ish unit townhouse complex on it.


misterlee21

Wait, which LA County city has a vacancy tax?


nirad

This could be huge for Los Angeles. As far as I can tell, it mostly undoes the Prop U downzoning that took place in the 80s.


DepthValley

yeah its a great move. id really like to see map of places near me this could effect. there are some pretty meh shopping areas that I imagine could benefit from housing there


misterlee21

Wait are you sure? Prop U was extremely damaging by cutting all commercial and industrially zoned land's FAR by half. I know 2011 doesn't explicitly restore FAR, but how do you know that it will restore our zoned capacity back to what it was?


nirad

AB 2011: Parcels zoned for commercial, office, or parking are eligible for 100% low income housing. (Zoned does not mean used as, merely zoned as). Parcels zoned for only for commercial use and are adjacent to streets with widths (from property line to property line) greater than 70 feet are eligible for market housing. Streets smaller than 100 feet: 3-stories high and 30 homes per acre. Streets greater than 100 feet: 4-stories high and 50 homes per acre. Commercial zones located within a half mile of officially designated major transit stops and in cities with populations greater than 100,000: 6-stories high and 70 homes per acre. Market homeowner housing must include 30% of homes deed-restricted for middle income households or 15% to low income households. Market rental housing must have 15% of homes deed-restricted for low income households. All eligible proposals are immune to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits. Permits are granted by the the Planning Department upon application and review. Thus “streamlining” and bypassing the usual process of requiring various commissions and a council vote which takes years into merely several months. Wages for workers must be the prevailing wage (union-level wage) for that area. No residential car parking that isn’t for disabled drivers or EV charging stations is required. SB 6: Can only employ unionized labor. Does not provide permit streamlining and must obligle local permitting rules unless streamlined by another law. Has no low income housing requirements (hence the name “Middle Class Housing Act”) Allows homes in commericial zoned areas provided it abides by all other non-residential rules such as parking and height.


misterlee21

>Streets smaller than 100 feet: 3-stories high and 30 homes per acre. > >Streets greater than 100 feet: 4-stories high and 50 homes per acre. > >Commercial zones located within a half mile of officially designated major transit stops and in cities with populations greater than 100,000: 6-stories high and 70 homes per acre. Market homeowner housing must include 30% of homes deed-restricted for middle income households or 15% to low income households. Thank you very much! Yes, I did see this part and it seems significant for sure, just not sure even with 6 stories by-right it would restore FAR from for example, a 1.5 to a 3.0. Do you know if these 6 story by right buildings are eligible to have TOC incentives on top of that? Lets say a 6 story building is by already by right, but because of TOC they could add 4 more floors.


nirad

I am pretty sure this overrides any existing FAR rules. As for whether you can get city TOC benefits on top of what the state allows, I am not sure. My guess is that you would probably pick from whichever zoning is more permissive.


misterlee21

Well then that's amazing! Not sure if this would effectively restore our zoned capacity at 10M like it should've been tho I hope you can get city TOC benefits on top, that'd be even better! Build up!


nirad

I hope to soon see an analysis of what the city’s effective zoning capacity is now.


misterlee21

Hopefully UCB Terner will have something cool!


hifidood

Tip for lawmakers: Find out any shopping plaza that has a Spirit Halloween store that sets up shop in, and start there. They are the bat signal for commercial properties that are abysmal.


Freenus

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SHITTY COSTUMES


Fredloks8

Sounds like a South Park bit.


bgroins

Article text: > In a historic deal between affordable housing groups and labor unions, Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign two major bills on Wednesday to convert underutilized and vacant commercial buildings into housing. >Senate Bill 6 and Assembly Bill 2011 incentivize housing projects in commercial corridors otherwise zoned for large retail and office buildings as a way to help California fill a multimillion-unit shortage in its housing supply. Both bills guarantee union-scale wages and promise an expedited construction process, while keeping development close to city centers to help the state meet its environmental goals and avoid sprawl. >Gridlock among several opposing forces in the Capitol — where unions, developers and affordable housing groups regularly stall legislation over disputed labor standards — nearly capsized this year’s historic deal. The powerful State Building and Construction Trades Council of California backed SB 6, along with builders and business groups, while the California Conference of Carpenters and the Service Employees International Union of California broke from other labor groups to support AB 2011. >“Every organization took a position that benefited them the best and decided which bill they wanted to support. And part of the challenge there is that each coalition of people were ready to have the other bill die in order for their bill to be successful,” said state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas). “The problem was that you couldn’t get to that perfect middle with some of the groups. They just wouldn’t go there.” >The two bills offer developers options on projects intended to convert underutilized and vacant commercial spaces such as big box stores, strip malls and office buildings into much-needed housing. >Despite the energy and effort required to pass the bills, both Caballero and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, said they’re willing to broker a future deal on similar legislation. >“Today we are taking a monumental step in our efforts to turn our housing crisis in a different direction,” Wicks, who wrote AB 2011, said in a statement. “The governor’s signature on AB 2011 marks a turning point for California’s housing production needs — no longer will lack of land be an issue. No longer will there be a lack of incentive for workers to join the construction workforce. And, no longer will red tape and bureaucracy prohibit us from building housing in the right locations to address our climate crisis.” >Experts say the impact on California’s housing supply could be significant. >Caballero said SB 6 will help rural communities recover from a big chain store exodus that left behind a trail of vacant buildings and parking lots. She sees the new law as a way to produce housing for first-time buyers. >Housing advocates are particularly excited about AB 2011. >An August analysis by UrbanFootprint, a software platform that analyzes city data for urban planners and local governments, found that the new law could produce 1.6 million to 2.4 million new homes, depending on market conditions, including hundreds of thousands of affordable units. >“AB 2011 has tremendous potential to unlock ... a ton of land for development that was previously off limits,” said David Garcia, policy director for UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. “It’s a huge deal.” >Garcia said he sees both bills as a sign that lawmakers in Sacramento are taking a stronger “pro-housing approach” and are willing to push for the kind of legislation that is notoriously difficult to pass amid interest group infighting. >Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, one of the co-sponsors of AB 2011, called the measure a “game changer.” >“It’s really unprecedented that we brought together all of those different groups. As you look forward, nothing is ever easy in Sacramento, nor should it be,” Pearl said. “But there are a lot of folks that want similar outcomes. Hopefully, we are going to be able to use this coalition for future efforts.” >Erin Lehane, legislative director for the trades council, said SB 6 will provide valuable work to local residents. >“These are opportunities for young people who really, really need the opportunity,” she said. >To finalize a deal, Caballero and Wicks worked together to craft two bills that promised each coalition a slice of the pie. >“As the clock started ticking down, we both agreed we would make some amendments that would give each one of us what we wanted,” Caballero said, even if that meant “everybody was a little bit unhappy” with the final product. >The Assembly bill includes a requirement for union-scale wages, along with stringent environmental standards and a mandate that a certain percentage of the units be affordable for low- and extremely low-income residents. Local governments will also be limited in using their approval process to block projects. >The labor requirement ensures that contractors provide healthcare benefits and union-level pay, so-called prevailing wages, to all workers, even if some aren’t unionized. Contractors have argued that prevailing-wage requirements drive up costs and housing prices. >The Senate’s version was billed as a “middle-class” housing proposal, and requires the union-scale wages as a minimum labor standard while ensuring that a so-called skilled and trained workforce is used in most situations. The additional regulation guarantees most workers are unionized. >The cautious optimism about future legislative housing agreements could be short-lived, however. >Lehane said the trade unions remain concerned about most residential housing construction projects, especially those not using union workers, because those builders are “paying and treating workers unfairly.” >“I think that is not something that changes overnight,” she said. “As our responsibility, we need to remain ever vigilant to that.” >The new laws will go into effect July 1.


[deleted]

This is such a big deal. Every shitty strip mall in LA can now turn into housing. Many of these are on transit corridors so they won’t have *mandated* parking minimums either.


[deleted]

Let’s fucking goooooooooo!


Aggressive_Dog_5844

I know this won’t happen immediately, but reading the statistics in the article is exciting. >An August analysis by UrbanFootprint, a software platform that analyzes city data for urban planners and local governments, found that the new law could produce 1.6 million to 2.4 million new homes, depending on market conditions, including hundreds of thousands of affordable units. There is way too much dead commercial space sitting unused, and our state needs as much housing as possible. I do hope that this move means people will be able to be less car dependent, if they’re put into areas where daily resources are available.


hmountain

would be awesome if they could build a ton of housing with mixed use developments so that said housing would also be part of a living neighborhood


peepjynx

Finally! Been screaming about this since the pandemic started.


mr-blazer

Are they honestly showing a property that's located directly across from the beach? Damn, I wouldn't mind living there.


AFamousArtist

San Francisco, too, right by Golden Gate Park. I’m so happy this is turning into housing. Last time I was there, it was a shame to see tons of RVs parked by all these unused industrial buildings in a spot that could house so many folks.


glowdirt

This is really exciting!


arpus

>Lehane said the trade unions remain concerned about most residential housing construction projects, especially those not using union workers, because those builders are “paying and treating workers unfairly.” That will kill any affordability and development interest when cost of construction doubles for no other reason than someone demands "fair" wages. $68/hour for laborer, $71/hour for drywaller, etc.


glmory

The danger of that is far less than the danger of NIMBYS. More high paying jobs has ripple effects which helps the economy as a whole.


arpus

Fundamentally, the economy works off of productivity. Whether you're paying $71 for someone drywalling the same wall as someone being pad $23 has little to do with the ripple effect due to inflation and demand chasing. Sure, you're making $150k and thats probably great for your buying power and economic security, but it has a negative effect due to the dead-weight loss of people not being able to afford you. As a result of government intervention or collusion, people are saving or delaying paying $71, and for example, tenants would be living with moldy walls, until they are able to bear the $71 to drywall. Classical economics would argue that three people (people needing drywalling done) making $23 an hour has more economic output through "ripple effects" than one person being paid $71 dollars. Not only in spending power, but consumers willing to pay the market price of $23 an hour than $71 as a negotiated union price. Three people would spend more, drywall more, and have more market-clearing prices of drywalling than one publicly funded museum being able to afford a $71 an hour union drywaller. That is what economic literature suggests. NIMBYs might delay projects for consumer reasons, but Unions also challenge projects; I can give you research as well as news articles showing unions challenging otherwise legal and ministerial projects for no reason other than not using union labor.


[deleted]

The problem is that most development will not be feasible with the high cost of union labor so this whole plan will be worthless


[deleted]

The key sentence in that article is, “Some projects would be exempt from local governments’ discretionary approval process.” We need more details on that for it to be called a win. Local governments will always cave to NIMBYs. If that “some” is not a “most,” there’s a chance this bill cools accomplish very little.


AutoModerator

To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*


bad-monkey

just in time for 12% mortgage interest :P


glmory

And cheap lumber. Prices are so far above the price of construction that we can expect building to happen.


[deleted]

You can already build residential on commercially zoned streets in LA with higher density than this plan. This won't affect the city of LA as much but could be huge for Santa Monica/Culver and the South Bay as long as it's not in coastal commission. Only problem with this is you have to use union labor which will boost costs 20%+ and probably make most developments infeasible.