AIA|LA ADVOCACY UPDATE

Santa Monica Planning Commission | April 15, 2026
Item 14-A: Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan

At its April 15th meeting, the Santa Monica Planning Commission discussed a landmark Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan — a comprehensive policy package designed to produce design-excellent, financially feasible housing for households earning between 80% and 200% of Area Median Income: the firefighters, nurses, teachers, and working professionals that Santa Monica is rapidly losing.

The plan’s centerpiece is the adoption of a precise, codified definition of Missing Middle Housing — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, cottage courts, and courtyard housing of 2 to 12 units — as the legal and programmatic basis for targeted zoning amendments, fee restructuring, and pre-approved building plans. Unlike vague policy commitments that permit housing no one can afford to build, this definition enables specific concessions (reduced setbacks, R-3 building code classification, disaggregated transportation fees, tiered affordability covenant trade-offs) that make the local pathway more profitable than state-mandated alternatives — while requiring deed-restricted affordable units in return.

The plan draws on Portland’s Residential Infill Project, Sacramento’s density reforms, and the nationally recognized work of architect Daniel Parolek and Opticos Design, who coined the term ‘Missing Middle Housing’ in 2010.

Why it matters to AIA|LA members: This is housing policy designed by architects, for architects to build. Design excellence standards, pre-approved cottage court prototypes, contextual compatibility requirements, and a pathway for owner-occupants to develop their own land — all represent opportunities for the architectural community to lead. AIA|LA has submitted a letter of support.

The Neighborhood Everyone Loves — And Nobody Builds.

Or, “Why the Most Beloved Housing in America Has Been Illegal for 70 Years.”

An Editorial by Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA*

Something is missing from most American neighborhoods, and for the past seventy years, it’s been illegal to put it back.

The housing types that once made cities livable — the duplex on a tree-lined street, the courtyard apartment with a shared garden, the fourplex where a grandmother rented out a unit to help with the mortgage, the cottage court where young teachers and firefighters and nurses could actually afford to live — largely disappeared from the new construction landscape after the mid-20th century. Not because people stopped wanting them. Not because they stopped working architecturally. Not because neighbors stopped loving them. But because single-family zoning, parking requirements, and building codes designed for 200-unit towers made it prohibitively challenging to build them.

Look closely at any beloved American neighborhood — the ones people fight to preserve, the ones that anchor a city’s identity — and you will find these buildings. You will find front porches and porch swings. Potted plants climbing up the entry stairs. Shared garden courtyards where neighbors actually know each other’s names. Street trees whose canopy closes over the sidewalk. Unpaved moments between buildings where light falls differently. Craftsmanship in the brickwork, the trim, the gate latch. These are not accidents of history. They are the product of a building type — fine-grained, neighborhood-scaled, human in proportion — that was once the connective tissue of urban life.

The architect Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design gave this disappearance a name in 2010: Missing Middle Housing. The term captures both the physical reality — buildings of 2 to 12 units, house-scaled, neighborhood-compatible — and the economic one. These are the homes for households in the middle: too wealthy to qualify for subsidized housing, too financially stretched to afford what the market builds. In coastal California cities like Santa Monica, that means the firefighter married to a teacher, the nurse, the mid-career professional, the family that wants to stay in the neighborhood where they grew up.

But Missing Middle Housing is not only an affordability argument. It is an argument about what neighborhoods are for — about access to light and air, about resilient block-by-block ecosystems, about the health benefits of walkable streets, about the deeper human need for beauty, authenticity, and connection to community that large institutional development so often fails to provide. Smaller homes cost less to build and less to own. They carry smaller mortgages, lower energy bills, reduced maintenance, lower property taxes, and less embodied carbon. They are more likely to be built by the families, neighbors, and long-term property owners who have the greatest stake in making them beautiful and enduring — people whose personal stewardship produces safer, more authentic, more beloved neighborhoods than any institutional developer is incentivized to create.

Santa Monica’s Planning Commission took up this challenge at its April 15, 2026 meeting, considering a Missing Middle Housing Realignment Plan that is among the most sophisticated and design-informed housing policy proposals to come before a Southern California planning body in years. It deserves to succeed — and the tools needed to ensure that it does are clear, replicable, and urgently needed across the entire region.

Fifteen Recommendations for Getting Missing Middle Housing Built

1. Adopt Clear, Codified Definitions. Vague terminology is the enemy of buildable outcomes. Cities must adopt precise, applied definitions that specify building scale (2–12 units), compatible forms (cottage courts, townhouses, courtyard housing, duplexes through small multiplexes), and target income bands (80–200% AMI). Crucially, the definition must also be qualitative: walkable, charming, authentic, small-scale, contextually sensitive, and fine-grained. It should invoke what it means to live in a building with access to light and air, a connection to a shared courtyard or garden, a front porch that faces the street rather than a parking structure. A codified definition built around these attributes enables calibrated zoning standards, fee structures, and building code pathways — and prevents the term from being appropriated to describe projects it was never meant to serve.

2. Restructure Zoning to Legalize by Right. Discretionary approval processes for small-scale multifamily projects impose months of delay and tens of thousands of dollars in soft costs — enough to kill a project that barely pencils. Cities should follow Portland’s Residential Infill Project model: fourplexes and cottage courts permitted by right in residential zones, with objective design standards replacing subjective design review.

3. Implement Sliding Floor-Area-Ratio Schedules. Conventional FAR limits that apply the same standard regardless of unit count incentivize large units over more units. A sliding FAR — one that rewards additional smaller units with additional buildable floor area — directly aligns zoning math with the typological logic of missing middle housing. An 850 SF two-bedroom unit on a 6,000 SF lot with a 0.85 FAR produces six units; a conventional 1,600 SF unit on the same FAR produces two. Smaller units are not just more affordable to buy — they cost less to heat, cool, maintain, and pay taxes on. That is not a concession; it is a feature.

4. Reduce Setbacks Exclusively for MMH Pathways. Every foot of setback reduction translates directly into buildable area and, on cottage court configurations, additional unit yield. Reducing front setbacks from 20 to 15 feet and rear setbacks from 15 to 10 feet on qualifying projects can enable a seventh unit on a 7,500 SF lot — a unit whose revenue exceeds its construction cost and whose affordability covenant is the price of the concession. The setback reduction must be exclusive to the MMH pathway; extending it to state-law pathways eliminates all affordability leverage.

5. Adopt R-3 CBC Classification for Detached Cottage Courts. The International Residential Code and California Building Code classify detached structures with one dwelling unit as R-3 occupancy — the same classification as a single-family home. This avoids $15,000–$26,000 per unit in R-2 commercial-grade structural, fire, and accessibility requirements. With NFPA 13D sprinklers, detached cottages separated by six feet require no fire-rated walls. San Diego’s Information Bulletin 125 (2025) formalized this framework; other California cities should follow.

6. Disaggregate Transportation Impact Fees. Flat-rate transportation fees that treat a car-free cottage court the same as a parking-intensive apartment building violate the legal nexus principle and create a perverse disincentive for walkable, transit-oriented development. Post-Sheetz (2024), cities have both the legal basis and the policy imperative to charge per parking space for vehicle infrastructure and per bedroom for multimodal infrastructure. The savings — $1,600 or more per unit for car-free projects — can be the margin that makes a project pencil.

7. Trade Affordability Fees for Deed-Restricted Covenants. Affordable housing in-lieu fees generate revenue for housing trust funds, but at a slow and indirect route to actual units: trust fund dollars leveraged with LIHTC might eventually produce one subsidized unit per $250,000–$290,000 in local subsidy. A tiered fee reduction — 25% fee reduction for covenants at 200% AMI, up to a full waiver for units at 80% AMI — produces deed-restricted units immediately, at no cost to the public. The trade only works if the covenants run for 45–55 years and require annual income certification. It also shifts the financial burden away from the taxpayer and back to the private sector — an alignment of public goals with private investment that the current system, with its heavy reliance on public subsidy, has largely failed to achieve.

8. Develop and Deploy Pre-Approved Plans. Bespoke architectural design and full plan review add $8,000–$11,000 per unit and months of processing time to projects that could use standardized designs. Pre-approved cottage court plan sets — developed with design excellence standards and contextual flexibility built in — eliminate this barrier. Bryan, TX and Kalamazoo, MI demonstrated the cost savings; the lesson for design quality is that architects must be deeply involved in developing the prototype sets. Pre-approval does not mean cookie-cutter; it means that the hard design thinking has been done upstream, freeing builders to focus on craft and site-specific expression.

9. Eliminate Parking Minimums Near Transit. AB 2097 (2022) already prohibits parking minimums within a half mile of major transit stops in California, but implementation has been uneven and many jurisdictions continue to impose de facto parking requirements through other design standards. Eliminating parking requirements entirely for MMH projects in walkable neighborhoods reduces hard construction costs, increases unit yield per lot, and — crucially — allows that land to become courtyard, garden, porch, street tree, or shared outdoor space. The car-free cottage court is not a product of austerity; it is a product of design intelligence that redirects every dollar and square foot saved from asphalt back into the quality of the place itself.

10. Prioritize Innovative and Locally Sourced Building Materials. Mass timber, cross-laminated timber (CLT), structural insulated panels (SIPs), and factory-built modular components can reduce construction timelines by 20–30% and hard costs meaningfully on the smaller footprints that missing middle typologies require. Cities should streamline approval for pre-certified material systems and actively encourage local supply chains and locally made components. Less embodied carbon, faster construction, and lower cost are not trade-offs — they are co-benefits of the same design intelligence. There is also an aesthetic dividend: locally sourced materials tend to produce buildings with character, texture, and authenticity that mass-commodity construction cannot replicate. These are the buildings that age gracefully and earn the neighborhood’s affection.

11. Expand Homeownership Pathways Through Small-Lot Subdivision. Fee-simple small-lot subdivision — each cottage on its own titled lot — substantially reduces construction defect liability exposure compared to condominium structures, enabling smaller builders and owner-occupants to participate. It also creates genuine homeownership: individual lots that build equity, enable Prop 13 basis advantages, and represent meaningful wealth-building instruments for households priced out of traditional single-family ownership. A smaller home on a fee-simple lot carries a smaller mortgage, lower taxes, and lower ongoing costs — making homeownership accessible at earlier career stages and to a broader range of households. The City’s cottage court pre-approval program should prioritize this tenure type.

12. Establish Technical Assistance Programs for Owner-Developers. The most financially feasible missing middle projects are those developed by long-term property owners who carry land at historical cost rather than current market value — the family that has owned a corner lot for forty years, the neighbor who wants to add three cottages behind their house and rent them affordably to people they know. But many of those owners lack construction knowledge, project management experience, or access to construction financing. Cities and CDFIs should establish technical assistance programs — workshops, pre-development loan funds, contractor networks, and rotating capital pools — that convert willing landowners into capable developers. This is also where the qualitative promise of missing middle housing is most likely to be fulfilled: owner-developers tend to care deeply about the buildings they build, the neighbors they attract, and the legacy they leave. Personal stewardship, at scale, produces safer, more beautiful, more resilient neighborhoods than institutional development optimizing for exit.

13. Embed Design Excellence Standards in All Enabling Ordinances. Missing middle housing must earn its place in the neighborhood fabric by being beautiful, contextually responsive, and enduring. Design standards should address street-facing facade composition, entry expression, roofline variety, material authenticity, landscape integration, and — critically — access to light and air for all units. Front porches should face the street. Shared courtyards should be genuine outdoor rooms, not leftover space. Gardens should be designed for growing things. These are not aesthetic preferences imposed by design review committees; they are objective standards baked into the by-right approval framework, reflecting the lived experience that makes neighborhoods vibrant, healthy, and cherished. The goal is buildings that neighbors are proud to live next to — not merely tolerant of — and that grow more beloved with time, not less.

14. Advocate for State-Level Building Code Reform. The IRC’s current 3-unit cap on R-3 occupancy is the single largest building code barrier to missing middle housing in California. AB 6, pending in the Legislature, would extend R-3 treatment to multi-building cottage court configurations. Locally adopted definitions and ordinances create the platform for meaningful state advocacy — and the track record of cities that have moved first (Portland, Sacramento, San Diego) provides the empirical evidence that reform produces housing without adverse safety outcomes.

15. Measure, Report, and Iterate. Policy without measurement is aspiration. Cities adopting missing middle housing programs should establish baseline metrics — applications submitted, permits issued, units completed, deed-restricted covenants recorded, AMI levels served — and report annually. Portland’s Residential Infill Project produced 1,400+ units in three years, with fourplexes at 76% of production and average unit prices of $460,000 versus $916,000 for new single-family homes. That data exists because Portland measured. Santa Monica and every city in the region should do the same.

Missing middle housing is not a niche policy concern. It is the connective tissue of livable cities — the architectural infrastructure that makes walkable neighborhoods possible, that keeps working families in the communities that depend on them, and that allows cities to grow without losing what makes them worth living in.

It is also, at its best, an argument for beauty. For the front porch as a civic institution. For the shared garden as a form of neighborhood health care. For craftsmanship, authenticity, and locally made things. For the kind of urban fabric that people choose to preserve precisely because it has always given more than it asked of its inhabitants — in light, in air, in connection, in belonging.

The good news is that we know how to build it. We built it for decades. The buildings are still there, still beloved, still functioning. What we need are the policy conditions to build them again — at scale, by design, with excellence, and with the beauty and livability that make them worth building in the first place.

That work starts with a definition. It continues with the zoning, the fees, the building codes, the technical assistance, and the design standards that make the definition real. Santa Monica has an opportunity to lead. The rest of the region — and the people who deserve to live well in it — is watching.

* Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA, is the Director of Government & Public Affairs for the American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter.  The above editorial is his opinion and not meant to represent the official view of AIA Los Angeles, its membership, or its Board of Directors. He can be reached at will@aialosangeles.org and welcomes all feedback on his opinions.

AIA|LA Executive Committee Votes to Join Affordable LA: Mend It, Don’t End It Coalition

On April 7, 2026, the Executive Committee of the AIA|LA Board of Directors voted to have AIA Los Angeles join the Affordable LA: Mend It, Don’t End It coalition — a growing alliance of housing advocates, community organizations, and design professionals committed to strengthening Measure ULA so it can better deliver on its core promise: more housing, greater affordability, and reduced homelessness.

AIA|LA represents more than 4,500 architects and design professionals in the greater Los Angeles region. We support Measure ULA’s mission and believe it urgently needs targeted, practical reform. Research from UCLA, RAND, Harvard, and UC Irvine confirms that, as currently designed, the measure is suppressing the very multifamily housing production it was created to fund. And with a Howard Jarvis-backed initiative on the November 2026 ballot threatening to repeal ULA entirely, local reform is now the only responsible path to protecting it.

Alongside our coalition partners, AIA|LA will advocate for evidence-based fixes — including an exemption for newly constructed multifamily and mixed-use properties, a cap on tax rates for non-luxury transactions, and relief for wildfire-affected property owners — that will make Measure ULA more effective, more equitable, and more durable for years to come.

If you want to get more involved in the effort to reform and improve Measure ULA, please reach out to Will Wright at will@aialosangeles.org and share your specific ideas for reforms we should prioritize.

Mend It, Don’t End It: Why Reforming Measure ULA Is the Only Path to More Affordable Housing in Los Angeles

By Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA*

When Los Angeles voters approved Measure ULA in November 2022 — with nearly 58% in favor — they were making a clear and urgent statement: our city must do more to build affordable housing, protect renters, and end the homelessness crisis. AIA|LA supported that statement then, and we support it today. The mission of Measure ULA — to generate dedicated funding for affordable housing production and tenant protections — remains as vital as ever.

That is precisely why the evidence now before us demands a response. A measure built to house Angelenos should not be suppressing the housing Angelenos need. And that is exactly what is happening.

Reform ULA Now — or Lose It Entirely

Before we address the evidence on housing production, there is a more immediate threat that every architect and housing advocate must understand: the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has turned in signatures for a statewide November 2026 ballot initiative that would repeal Measure ULA and sharply curtail the ability of more than two dozen California cities to levy similar taxes. If that initiative passes, Los Angeles stands to lose not just a reformed ULA — but billions of dollars in housing funding, gone permanently.

The most effective defense against that statewide repeal is a credible, locally-driven reform process that demonstrates Measure ULA is being made to work. The Los Angeles City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Measure ULA — with a deadline of April 30, 2026, to deliver recommendations — is exactly that process. Supporting and shaping its work is not a concession to ULA’s opponents. It is the surest way to protect ULA’s funding, its mission, and its future.

The Evidence Is No Longer in Dispute

Multiple independent research institutions have established a causal link between Measure ULA and declining housing activity in the City of Los Angeles. UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies found at least a 1,910-unit-per-year drop in new multifamily housing — an 18% decline among projects with 20 or more units compared to the 2020–2022 baseline. A separate UCLA study found that since the tax took effect, the odds of a property selling above the tax threshold have fallen by up to 50%, with non-single-family transactions — precisely the properties needed to produce new housing — declining 30–50%. Researchers at RAND, Harvard, and UC Irvine have reached consistent conclusions.

Council President Harris-Dawson acknowledged this reality when he created the Ad Hoc Committee, stating plainly that “there are things in ULA that I frankly think were not in the spirit of the voters, like taxing the building of affordable housing.” We agree — and the reforms below would bring Measure ULA back into alignment with that intent.

Opponents of reform argue that weakening Measure ULA will make housing less affordable for low-income Angelenos. We take that concern seriously — and we reject the framing. The question is not whether to fund affordable housing. It is whether a tax structure that demonstrably suppresses the construction of that housing can survive on good intentions alone. The evidence consistently says no.

The Tax Structure Does Not Match Its Reputation

Measure ULA levies a 4% tax on real estate transactions above $5.3 million, and 5.5% on transactions above $10.6 million. It was marketed to voters as a “mansion tax” — a levy on luxury residential sales. In practice, however, apartment buildings, mixed-income developments, and commercial properties routinely transact above these thresholds not because of their luxury character but because of their size and scale. A 40-unit apartment building in a working-class neighborhood is not a mansion. Taxing its sale as one is not what voters approved, and it is not helping anyone get housed.

A Pipeline on the Brink — and ULA Is Making It Worse

The March 2026 Enterprise Community Partners report illuminates how precarious Los Angeles’s housing pipeline already is. Across California, 39,880 affordable homes — fully designed, entitled, and approved across 461 developments — sit unable to break ground for lack of final capital. In Los Angeles and Ventura counties alone, 9,533 of those homes are ready and waiting, many in communities still recovering from the 2025 wildfires.

These are not speculative proposals. They have completed community engagement, secured land use approvals, and received at least partial public funding. What they lack is the closing capital to move from shovel-ready to under construction. Enterprise estimates that funding this pipeline requires $2.3 billion in state subsidies, $1.8 billion in state tax credits, and $5.8 billion in tax-exempt bonds. For every $1 of state investment, nearly $3.60 in local, federal, and private capital is leveraged — meaning California stands to lose an estimated $7.7 billion in matched investment if public subsidy doesn’t follow.

This is the environment in which Measure ULA is operating: a moment of acute statewide funding shortfall when Los Angeles is simultaneously applying a 4–5.5% transfer tax to the very multifamily transactions needed to unlock that pipeline. Enterprise also flags that fragmented financing systems already add as much as $47,000 per unit in unnecessary costs. Every additional barrier — including ULA’s current design — matters enormously to whether a project pencils out.

California Is Moving Forward. ULA Is Pulling Back.

In July 2025, Governor Newsom announced the reorganization of state government to create the California Housing and Homelessness Agency (CHHA) — a dedicated, standalone body consolidating the Department of Housing and Community Development, CalHFA, the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, and other key agencies under unified leadership. The CHHA is scheduled to begin full operations on July 1, 2026. Its explicit purpose is to streamline housing finance, reduce per-unit costs, and accelerate production toward California’s goal of 2.5 million new homes by 2030, including 1 million affordable. Enterprise estimates the coordination this new structure enables could generate $463 million in annual cost savings.
Reforming Measure ULA before the CHHA formally launches is how Los Angeles demonstrates it is ready to be the state’s most effective partner — not its most conspicuous obstacle. A city tax that deters the housing the Governor is restructuring state government to deliver is a misalignment the City of Los Angeles cannot afford.

Los Angeles Is Losing Ground to Its Own Neighbors

Measure ULA applies only within the City of Los Angeles. Every neighboring jurisdiction — Long Beach, Culver City, Glendale, Burbank, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Alhambra, El Segundo, Inglewood, and dozens more across LA County’s 88 incorporated cities — operates under no comparable tax burden. Developers, investors, and property owners are not leaving the region. They are crossing city boundaries.

When a multifamily project in the City of LA carries a 4–5.5% transfer tax at sale and the same project two miles away in Culver City does not, capital flows to the lower-friction market. Entitlements and permits follow. This dynamic is compounded by LACAHSA, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency — a new regional intergovernmental body created by state legislation to accelerate housing production across all 88 cities in the county. LACAHSA’s funding model and regional mission reflect a growing consensus that housing solutions must function at the county scale. A city-only tax structure that unintentionally diverts investment to neighboring jurisdictions works against that regional logic.

Three Reforms That Will Make a Difference

We encourage three targeted, evidence-based reforms consistent with the recommendations before the Ad Hoc Committee:

1. Exempt newly constructed multifamily and non-residential properties for a defined period.

New housing construction is not a wealth transfer — it is the act of creating the very supply Los Angeles urgently needs. A 15-year exemption for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use projects (defined as properties with 4 or more dwelling units) would remove the tax as a barrier to new development while preserving full revenues from the resale of existing high-value properties. Given that nearly 9,500 pipeline homes in the LA region are stalled for lack of capital, eliminating an additional transactional cost at the point of sale is not a concession to developers — it is a precondition for getting housing built.

2. Cap the maximum tax rate on multifamily and non-residential properties.

A cap on the effective tax rate for apartment buildings and commercial properties would reduce the measure’s deterrent effect on institutional investment, make the City more competitive with neighboring jurisdictions, and align Measure ULA with the state’s drive to lower per-unit housing costs — without meaningfully reducing revenues from true luxury transactions.

3. Create a temporary exemption for wildfire-impacted properties.

The 2025 LA wildfires destroyed thousands of homes and displaced tens of thousands of families. Applying a real estate transfer tax to property owners attempting to rebuild or sell out of necessity in fire-affected areas is a cruel policy and bad optics for a measure designed to help the vulnerable. A temporary, hardship-based exemption for properties in declared disaster areas — retroactive to January 2025 — would bring Measure ULA into alignment with basic principles of equity and community recovery.

Conclusion: Reform Is How We Protect Measure ULA’s Mission

There is a false framing in this debate that AIA|LA must name and reject: that reforming Measure ULA means choosing between low-income tenants and housing developers. It does not. A measure that stalls housing production, drives investment to neighboring cities, and runs counter to the state’s housing agenda ultimately fails the very tenants it was designed to protect — by keeping supply constrained, rents high, and homelessness intractable. And a measure left unreformed faces a statewide ballot initiative that could eliminate it entirely.

AIA|LA has joined the Affordable LA: Mend It, Don’t End It coalition because we believe architects have both a professional obligation and a civic responsibility to advocate for a built environment that is equitable, sustainable, and within reach of all Angelenos. The Ad Hoc Committee’s April 30 deadline is not an abstraction — it is an urgent call for every design professional in Los Angeles to make their voice heard.

* Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA, is the Director of Government & Public Affairs for the American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter.  The above editorial is his opinion and not meant to represent the official view of AIA Los Angeles, its membership, or its Board of Directors. He can be reached at will@aialosangeles.org and welcomes all feedback on his opinions.

CALL TO ACTION FOR ARCHITECTS: REFORM MEASURE ULA

How You Can Make a Difference: Three Ways to Act Now

URGENT: The Ad Hoc Committee on Measure ULA dissolves April 30, 2026. You have fewer than three weeks to make your voice heard in the formal process.

AIA|LA members and LA-area architecture firms have a powerful and credible voice in this policy debate. Here is how to use it:

A. Join the Affordable LA: Mend It, Don’t End It Coalition

The Affordable LA coalition was founded by major original supporters of Measure ULA who believe the measure needs practical, targeted reform to fulfill its mission. Joining is free, takes less than two minutes, and adds the voice of the design profession to a credible alliance fighting for a stronger, more effective ULA.

Join the Coalition — Sign-Up Form

For questions about the coalition, contact reformmeasureula@gmail.com or visit www.reformula.org.

B. Share Your Recommendations with the Ad Hoc Committee on Measure ULA

The Ad Hoc Committee — chaired by Councilmember Jurado, with Councilmembers Lee and Padilla — is reviewing reform proposals under Council File 26-0088-S1. Its recommendations, due by April 30, 2026, could be placed before voters on the November 2026 ballot. This is your most direct and time-sensitive opportunity to shape the outcome.

How to engage:
• Submit written public comment to the City Clerk’s office, referencing Council File 26-0088-S1. Written comments become part of the official public record.
• Attend Ad Hoc Committee hearings in person or virtually and sign up to provide oral public comment (typically 2 minutes per speaker). Check lacity.gov for upcoming hearing dates before April 30.
• Contact committee members directly with your professional perspective. Reference specific projects, client situations, or market data that illustrate how ULA is affecting housing production in your practice.
• Share the March 27th support letter with your colleagues and clients so they understand the professional design community’s position.

Key resources:
Council File 26-0088-S1 — City Clerk Connect
March 27 Hearing Materials (PDF)
Ad Hoc Committee Report (PDF)
March 27 Committee Hearing Video

C. Provide Input to the Measure ULA Citizens Oversight Committee

The Measure ULA Citizens Oversight Committee (ULA COC) is the independent watchdog body responsible for monitoring how ULA funds are collected, allocated, and spent. It has already voted to support recommendations on changes to ULA-financed affordable housing projects — meaning it is an active participant in the reform conversation, not a passive observer.

How to engage:
• Visit the ULA COC website to review meeting schedules, agendas, and prior meeting minutes.
• Attend COC public meetings and provide oral public comment on the measure’s impact on housing production, architectural practice, and the development pipeline.
• Submit written technical input on reform recommendations, project pipeline impacts, or analysis of how the tax structure affects housing feasibility.

REQUEST TO LA-AREA ARCHITECTURE FIRMS

We Need Your Data: How Is Measure ULA Affecting Your Firm and Your Clients?

Time-sensitive: AIA|LA is compiling firm-level data for submission to the Ad Hoc Committee before its April 30, 2026 deadline. Please respond as soon as possible.

AIA|LA is building an evidence base to support our advocacy for Measure ULA reform. The strongest case we can make to the Ad Hoc Committee and the Citizens Oversight Committee is one grounded in real-world, firsthand data from practicing architects and the firms that employ them. We need to hear from you.

Your responses may be used — with your permission and proper attribution — in AIA|LA’s formal advocacy materials, public comment submissions, and communications to elected officials. Identifying information will only be shared with your explicit consent.

What We’re Asking

1. How is Measure ULA affecting your clients?

Please share specific examples of projects that have been delayed, modified, restructured, or abandoned as a result of Measure ULA. If possible, quantify the impact: How much did the tax burden alter the project’s financial feasibility? Did it change the unit count, tenure mix, or affordability targets? Did the client ultimately move the project to a different jurisdiction?

2. How is Measure ULA affecting your firm’s architectural billings?

We are particularly interested in how your firm’s billings on ULA-affected projects within the City of Los Angeles compare to billings on comparable projects elsewhere in LA County — projects not subject to the ULA transfer tax. Are you seeing a shift in where clients are choosing to develop? Is work migrating from City of LA to jurisdictions like Culver City, Glendale, Long Beach, or Pasadena? This LA city-vs.-County comparison is a powerful data point for the Ad Hoc Committee.

3. Has Measure ULA required your firm to reduce staff or lay off workers?

If your firm has experienced workforce reductions — including furloughs, layoffs, or failure to backfill departures — attributable in whole or in part to a decline in ULA-affected project work, please share that information. Include both licensed architects and support staff. The human cost of suppressed housing production is a critical part of this policy story, and one that policymakers often overlook.

4. Are any of your clients directly affected by the wildfire exemption gap?

If you are working with clients who are attempting to sell or rebuild wildfire-affected properties and face ULA tax exposure as a result, please share those details. This is one of the most compelling and sympathetic arguments for targeted reform, and specific cases will strengthen the case for a retroactive hardship exemption.

5. Any other impacts we should know about?

We welcome additional context, data, or examples that help illustrate how Measure ULA is shaping architectural practice, client decision-making, and housing production in the greater Los Angeles region.

How to Submit Your Information

Please send your responses to AIA|LA’s Director of Government & Public Affairs, Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA, as soon as possible and no later than April 25, 2026, to allow time for inclusion in Ad Hoc Committee submissions:

Via Email to: Will{@}aialosangeles.org w/ Subject line: Measure ULA Firm Impact Data

Your input will be treated with discretion and used to strengthen AIA|LA’s advocacy on behalf of the design profession and the communities we serve. We hope to hear from firms of all sizes, across all project types and neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time, your data, and your commitment to ensuring Los Angeles can build the housing its residents deserve.

Don’t Let Policy ‘Happen’ to Your Practice: Join the 2026 AIA|LA Agency Roundtables and ‘Design’ It!

Navigating the regulatory landscape of Los Angeles is often one of the most complex, time-consuming, and expensive challenges in architecture today. Projects stall, budgets inflate, and timelines stretch—often due to processes that feel out of our control.

But you do have control.

The AIA|LA Government Outreach (GO!) Committee has organized a comprehensive series of quarterly roundtables with the leadership of the three agencies that dictate the flow of your projects: Los Angeles City Planning (LACP), the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), and the Department of Water and Power (LADWP).

These sessions are not standard webinars; they are working forums designed to break down silos, modernize standards, and establish a shared culture of trust between the private sector and city personnel.

Why You Need to Be in the Virtual Room

Gain Immediate Clarity: Get ahead of major operational shifts (like Zoning Plan Check moving to LACP) before they disrupt your current workflow.

Direct Access to Leadership: Cut through the red tape and hear firsthand updates on emerging initiatives directly from General Managers and Department Heads.

Solve Specific Roadblocks: Have a project stalled by 14′ ground floor minimums or late-stage LADWP transformer placements? This is where we advocate for specific, technical code clean-ups.

Shape the Agenda: Your boots-on-the-ground experience directly informs AIA|LA’s advocacy efforts, turning your daily frustrations into actionable policy reforms.

Below is the 2026 schedule for each agency. Please RSVP via the links provided to secure your spot and ensure your voice is heard.

1. Meetings w/ Los Angeles City Planning (LACP) Leadership

Focus: The Regulatory Shift & Code Clean-Up

Our upcoming April session will dive deep into the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the Development Services Bureau, focusing extensively on the critical transition of the zoning plan check process, shifting from LADBS to LACP. Future sessions will tackle statewide housing initiatives (SB 79, AB 130), the impact of AI on compliance, and navigating the Missing Middle and Livable Communities Initiative.

2026 Schedule (Virtual via Zoom, 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm)

• Tuesday, January 27 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am (in-person at LA City Hall)
• Wednesday, April 22 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm – RSVP HERE.
• Tuesday, August 18 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm – RSVP HERE.
• Wednesday, November 18 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm – RSVP HERE.

2. Meetings w/ LA Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) Leadership

Focus: Building Codes, Streamlining, & Resilience

Connect directly with Osama Younan, P.E., General Manager of LADBS. This is the forum for architects and design professionals to clarify building code interpretations, push for permit streamlining, and discuss the implementation of sustainable building practices.

2026 Schedule (Virtual, 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm)

• Monday, March 16 (1 pm – 2 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Monday, June 15 (1 pm – 2 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Monday, September 21 (1 pm – 2 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Monday, December 7 (1 pm – 2 pm) – RSVP HERE.

3. Meetings w/ LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Leadership

Focus: Powering Progress & Streamlining Infrastructure

Since 2021, we have secured critical wins with LADWP, including faster processing for ED1 affordable housing and smarter financial solutions for line extensions. Our Prime 2026 Advocacy Priority is pushing LADWP to require review and approval by the Service Planner and ESR (Field Team) during the normal Plan Check Period—avoiding the costly delays that occur when the ESR first sees a project late in the construction phase.

2026 Schedule (Virtual via LADWP’s MS Teams, 11:30 am – 12:30 pm)

• Thursday, March 5 (11:30 am – 12:30 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Thursday, May 7 (11:30 am – 12:30 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Thursday, August 13 (11:30 am – 12:30 pm) – RSVP HERE.
• Thursday, November 5 (11:30 am – 12:30 pm) – RSVP HERE.

Have a specific item for the agenda? We want to hear about the specific issues, challenges, and recommendations you are facing in the field. Please email Will@aialosangeles.org to have your item added to the docket for upcoming meetings.

Advocate. Innovate. Streamline. We look forward to seeing you there.

Very truly yours,

AIA Los Angeles GO! Committee

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA
Director, Government & Public Affairs
t: 213.639.0764
e: will@aialosangeles.org
www.aialosangeles.org

*Disclaimer: The advice and perspectives shared here belong to the author and should not be considered official recommendations from AIA Los Angeles.