5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue Affordable Apartments (ED1)

Ask a question to begin.

On her fourth day in office, Mayor Karen Bass signs Executive Directive 1 (ED1), eliminating hearings, appeals, and environmental reviews for 100% affordable housing projects. The program promises approvals within ~60 days. The original order says nothing about single-family zones, leaving their eligibility ambiguous. Developers begin scouting eligible sites including the San Fernando Valley.

The developer files a preliminary application for a 100% affordable 200-unit apartment building at 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue under Executive Directive 1, combining ED1 with the California State Density Bonus Law. The site is zoned for single-family homes but designated in the General Plan for multifamily development. Under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act, submitting a complete preliminary application vests the applicant to the rules in effect at time of submission.

The City of Los Angeles issues an "Affordable Housing Referral" to the developer at 5501 Ethel — a step in processing the ED1 application, confirming initial acknowledgment of the application.

Mayor Bass issues a revised "Clarified ED1" explicitly prohibiting ED1 ministerial processing for projects on sites in single-family zones. The revision follows backlash from homeowner groups in the San Fernando Valley. The June 12 revision retroactively applies to projects already in the pipeline — jeopardizing this application and approximately 9 similar projects totaling ~2,400 units across the San Fernando Valley.

City Planning issues a "Status of Project Review Letter (Hold Letter)" putting the 5501 Ethel application on hold pending determination of eligibility under the revised ED1.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development writes a formal Technical Assistance Letter to the PLUM Committee specifically about the 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue project. HCD argues the developer has vested rights under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act, and urges the city "to expeditiously process all ED1 projects in accordance with the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time the preliminary applications were complete." HCD warns that denying projects under retroactively applied rules could violate state housing law.

The City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee hears and denies the appeal of the city's determination that the 5501-5511 N. Ethel Avenue project is ineligible for ED1 processing. Despite HCD's letter the previous day, the committee sides with the city's position that the revised ED1 applies retroactively. This is the effective end of the project's pathway forward.

YIMBY Law files suit against the City of Los Angeles over the Winnetka Boulevard project (360 units, Canoga Park/Winnetka) — a similar ED1 project in a single-family zone. YIMBY Law does not file suit on behalf of the 5501 Ethel Avenue project. For developers of projects lacking legal resources, the city's denial is effectively final. Some developers "have already given up on pushing the issue."

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant rules that the City violated state law by retroactively denying the Winnetka Boulevard project's ED1 eligibility — the same legal issue as the 5501 Ethel project. "The city's attempt to require the project to comply with policies not in effect when the preliminary application was submitted is a violation of the Housing Accountability Act." The ruling vindicates the legal position HCD had taken a year earlier. However it does not automatically revive the 5501 Ethel project, which had no legal representation.

The Los Angeles Times reports that 18 months after the ED1 projects were proposed, the majority of the 10 San Fernando Valley single-family zone projects have been abandoned. Only 4 projects (~800 units) are moving forward, and only after intensive court battles. "None have broken ground." The Ethel Avenue project is not among the 4 named survivors, consistent with abandonment.

"HCD urges the City to expeditiously process all ED1 projects in accordance with the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time the preliminary applications were complete." (September 14, 2023 Technical Assistance Letter to PLUM). Argued the developer had vested rights under the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act.

"I feel like Los Angeles is a city where politicians are encouraged to run to stop things from happening, where stopping projects and stopping growth is prized as a political asset here. I think we need to change that culture. We have to move to being a city that says yes to housing to preserve the city's future." (February 2025)

"When ED1 was first announced, we were so excited to see thousands of affordable homes being proposed throughout the city. But revising the order and retroactively applying new restrictions to projects that have already been submitted is illegal. These homes need to be approved. It's the law, and it's what Angelenos need." Sonja Trauss: "They changed the rules in the middle of the game." Filed suit on similar projects; won the Winnetka case.

"Large scale apartments should not be wedged in-between single family homes by right, especially when there is no guarantee from developers that any mitigation efforts like new traffic lights or improved sidewalks will follow such construction." Characterized developers as "opportunistic" with a "disproportionate" impact.

Apartments in single-family neighborhoods create traffic, parking problems, and are "out of character" with the surrounding area. Developers "exploited a loophole" in ED1 — the program was never meant for single-family residential streets. Residents should have a voice in what gets built in their neighborhoods.

Initially: ED1 exists to build affordable housing faster, everywhere in the city. After reversal: single-family zones were not intended to be covered by ED1; the program is for sites where multifamily housing is already permitted. The mayor's office did not respond to multiple press inquiries about the policy reversal.

Mayor Bass revised Executive Directive 1 on June 12, 2023 to retroactively exclude properties in single-family zones from the program, despite the applicant at 5501 Ethel having submitted their application under the original program rules. The PLUM Committee denied the developer's appeal on September 19, 2023. HCD wrote a Technical Assistance Letter stating the retroactive application likely violated the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act. The PLUM denial was upheld. A court later ruled (September 2024, Winnetka case) that this same action was illegal — but the Ethel project was not litigated and appears to have been abandoned. NOTE: unlike all other cases in this database, the opposition here was exercised through direct political pressure on the mayor, who changed her own administrative program — not through formal regulatory mechanisms like CEQA or SB 35 denial.

May 2025 coverage of the 3 projects court-ordered to be un-denied. The Ethel Avenue project is NOT among these, confirming its abandonment.

The definitive journalistic account of the overall SFV ED1 controversy. Confirms: 10 projects totaling ~2,400 units; majority abandoned; only 4 (~800 units) moving forward; none have broken ground. Contains Blumenfield and Raman quotes.

Coverage of Judge Chalfant's ruling that the city violated the HAA in the Winnetka case — the same legal issue as the Ethel project. Key for establishing the policy reversal was ultimately ruled illegal.

RAND policy commentary on the overall pattern. Notes 75% of LA's residentially zoned land is single-family only. Useful for framing the policy stakes.

Coverage of YIMBY Law's first lawsuit (Winnetka project). Establishes legal context and Sonja Trauss "changed the rules in the middle of the game" quote.

YIMBY Law's press release for its second ED1 lawsuit. Contains legal theory (vested rights under Housing Crisis Act and HAA) and statement on 1,500+ affordable homes affected by policy reversal.

Primary government record. Contains full project description, application timeline, project summary (200 units, 100% affordable), case numbers (ADM-2023-3809-DB-VHCA-ED1 and CPC-2023-3809-DB-PHP-VHCA), and legal arguments for both sides.

Primary source. HCD's formal letter to PLUM specifically about this project. Contains the legal argument for vested rights, policy background, and HCD's recommendation that the city process the project under original ED1 rules.