Los Angeles is a city known for its diverse topography, which includes iconic hillside neighborhoods offering breathtaking views and unique living experiences. However, a section of its municipal code, LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3), poses substantial challenges to development and growth in these areas. This regulation mandates that any new construction or additions to single-family homes on lots in hillside areas must have a continuous 20-foot wide paved roadway extending from the residence’s driveway to the boundary of the hillside area. While this requirement aims to promote safety and accessibility, it is neither practical nor economically feasible and has, therefore, never been met by developers. This article explores why LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) should be removed from the Los Angeles Municipal Code and highlights the financial burdens associated with seeking relief through LAMC 12.24 X 28.
Understanding LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3)
The regulation outlined in LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) is meant to ensure that properties in hillside areas are accessible via roads wide enough for safe passage, particularly for emergency vehicles. The safety-oriented intent behind this regulation is understandable. However, the practical implications of the rule have made it a nearly insurmountable obstacle for developers, effectively blocking new construction in these areas.
The Impracticality of Compliance
Physical Constraints: The narrow, winding roads that characterize many hillside areas in Los Angeles are often integrated into steep terrain. Expanding these roads to meet the 20-foot width requirement would require significant land modification, which could disrupt local ecosystems and run afoul of property rights.
Financial Implications: Complying with this requirement would entail substantial costs related to road construction and potential property acquisition. The financial burden associated with modifying or expanding hillside roads makes most projects economically unfeasible.
Historical Context: Not a single developer has successfully complied with this mandate. The regulation exists more as an aspirational guideline than a practical standard, effectively serving as a deterrent to any proposed development that might otherwise contribute to the city’s housing stock.
Financial Burden of Seeking Relief
Given the impracticality of meeting the requirements of LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3), developers often seek relief through LAMC 12.24 X 28, which allows for exceptions or modifications to certain zoning regulations. However, this route is far from simple or inexpensive.
High Costs of Entitlements: Filing for an entitlement under LAMC 12.24 X 28 can cost developers tens of thousands of dollars. These expenses include not only application fees but also the costs of preparing comprehensive plans, conducting environmental and traffic impact studies, and hiring consultants and legal experts. This significant financial commitment deters developers from pursuing hillside projects, further limiting the city’s development potential.
Lengthy Approval Process: The entitlement process is often long and filled with uncertainty. Developers can face months, or even years, of delays, during which time project costs increase, and the risk of rejection looms. Even after investing substantial resources, there is no guarantee of approval.
Impact on Housing Development and Affordability
Los Angeles is in the midst of a severe housing crisis. Regulations like LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) exacerbate this issue by effectively halting development in hillside areas that could otherwise be used to meet growing demand. The additional financial burden of seeking relief through LAMC 12.24 X 28 only compounds the problem.
Limiting Development Opportunities: The rigid requirements for roadway width deter developers from considering hillside projects, reducing the number of new housing units constructed in these areas.
Driving Up Costs: Developers who do pursue hillside projects and manage to secure entitlements under LAMC 12.24 X 28 must recoup their significant investment. This often results in higher property prices, which further impacts affordability for homebuyers.
Reduced Housing Supply: The combination of strict regulations and high entitlement costs creates a bottleneck in the housing supply, exacerbating the city’s shortage and driving up real estate prices citywide.
Lost Revenue for the City: By preventing new developments, the regulation limits potential property tax revenue that could be used to improve infrastructure and fund public services. This economic stagnation affects not only potential homeowners but the entire city.
Concerns from Stakeholders
Developers: For developers, the financial and procedural obstacles presented by LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) and the associated costs of applying for relief through LAMC 12.24 X 28 are prohibitive. The regulation dissuades both large-scale developers and smaller, independent builders from pursuing projects that could otherwise contribute to the city’s housing supply.
Prospective Homeowners: Restricted development leads to a limited inventory of homes, particularly in desirable hillside areas. This limited supply drives up home prices and puts hillside properties out of reach for many prospective buyers.
City Planners and Officials: While the intent of LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) is rooted in public safety, city planners recognize that its rigid enforcement can stifle growth. This regulation places city officials in a challenging position, balancing the need for safety with the practicalities of urban expansion.
Balancing Safety and Practicality
The primary rationale behind LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) is ensuring safety and accessibility, especially for emergency services. However, alternative solutions could achieve these safety goals without imposing impractical and financially prohibitive mandates.
Alternative Safety Measures: Instead of requiring a full 20-foot wide roadway, the city could consider more achievable safety enhancements, such as designated passing bays or mandatory turnouts at regular intervals.
Emergency Access Improvements: Investing in dedicated emergency access routes or alternative paths that do not require residential roads to be expanded could provide the needed safety measures without the financial burden on developers.
Technology and Traffic Solutions: Modern traffic control measures and smart technology solutions, such as automated systems that manage traffic flow and access during emergencies, could provide added safety without the need for costly and impractical road expansions.
A Call for Regulatory Revision
The current regulation under LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) is a significant barrier to responsible growth in Los Angeles. Removing or revising this regulation would encourage development while maintaining safety standards and promoting sustainable housing solutions.
Sustainable Development: Revising the code would enable a balance between safety and practical development, fostering responsible growth in hillside areas without imposing unreasonable burdens on developers.
Economic Growth: Removing these roadblocks would stimulate investment in hillside properties, generating jobs and boosting local economies. A surge in development would contribute to property tax revenue, benefiting the city’s budget.
Addressing Housing Needs: Los Angeles faces an urgent need for more housing, and restrictive regulations like LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) hinder progress. Amending or removing this code would help increase the housing supply, supporting citywide efforts to make housing more accessible and affordable.
Proposed Solutions and Recommendations
To reconcile the goals of safety and growth, Los Angeles should consider adopting alternative approaches:
Amending the Code: Adjust the regulation to include flexible standards, such as narrower roadways with strategic safety measures like turnouts or designated emergency routes.
Public-Private Partnerships: Partnering with developers to co-fund necessary infrastructure improvements would share the financial responsibility and incentivize development.
Innovative Safety Solutions: Leveraging new technology and traffic management strategies can provide the required safety measures without the high costs of compliance with the current regulation.
Conclusion
The removal or revision of LAMC 12.21.C10(i)(3) is crucial for fostering practical and sustainable growth in Los Angeles. The regulation’s current form is financially and practically prohibitive, preventing responsible development and contributing to the city’s housing crisis. By acknowledging the impracticality of this rule and addressing the significant costs developers face under LAMC 12.24 X 28, the city can open pathways for balanced growth, economic stimulation, and increased housing opportunities.
Contact us now and our expert staff will help you.
