A History of Zoning in L.A. - Part II of III

Welcome back to Part II of “A History of Zoning in Los Angeles.”

Part I covers the history of the first two regimes in which zoning serves the interests of small-scale speculators (1920 - 1935) followed by large-scale single-family-home developers (1935 - 1960).  This part addresses the history of the 3^rd regime (1960 - 2000), the time in which city planning bows to the pressure imposed by homeowners to maintain a “no growth” policy.

In the 3^rd zoning regime, the major interests favor the residential property owners who tie their identity to living in low-density, single family housing developments.  For many homeowners, they perceive an adverse economic impact to anything that affects their way of life.  The 3^rd zoning regime begins in 1960, reaches its zenith by 1990, and then loses control due to the housing crisis.

The Honeymoon is Over

During the 2^nd regime, single family homeowner interests are closely aligned with big developers.  Both the developer and homeowner benefit from government loan programs that provided easy access to low-cost financing.  Zoning changes directed against spot zoning favor the big real-estate interests.  Small scale apartment and commercial developers are prohibited from entering the area and potentially impacting the favorable FHA rating of the development.  For homeowners, zoning restrictions are more enforceable than deed restrictions.

However, after 1960, homeowners are often at odds with big developers.  Some developers turn to denser “in fill” projects as the market for low-density development dwindles.  In 1962, the Los Feliz Improvement Association scores a victory against “in fill” projects by getting the city to tighten and expand height restrictions by approving a height district.  Other wealthy areas of the city follow.  Some property owners believe that the view from ones’ property, the vista, is an inalienable asset of ownership.

Homeowner groups, acting through City Council, freeze rezoning actions proposed by city planning.  City planners can no longer rely upon public apathy to ensure the easy approval by Council of their zoning plans.

Homeowners Call the Shots

In 1966, a county grand jury indicts the Chatsworth developer of a 900-unit townhouse project for grand theft and conspiracy to pay bribes.  The trial becomes a public hearing against zoning and in response, a citizens committee is formed.  The committee calls for regular area-by-area revision of the General Plan, the conformance of zoning with the General Plan, and standardized processing for conditional use permits.  The 1969 city charter amendments adopt the area-by-area revisions and standardized permit processing, but not the conformance of zoning with the General Plan.

The Planning Department, in response, reorganizes so that staff can specialize in addressing local issues and prepare the area-by-area reviews.  Homeowner groups participate in the review process and most want zoning rollbacks.  The first city-wide conceptual plan “Concept Los Angeles,” calls for the preservation of single-family construction with high-density mixed-use development placed in concentrated centers.  A 1972 study, issued by the Planning Department, supports a 35 percent reduction in zoning capacity for a projected city-wide population of 4.1 million by 1990.  Our current population, 34 years later, is at 4.0 million.

The “No Growth” Machine

Even with the rollbacks, some people are not satisfied, and they call for a no-growth policy.  They view the accommodation of growth as growth stimulation.  Permissive zoning allows more development and development leads to more permissive zoning.  In quoting the movie Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come.”  City planners try to counter this argument by pointing out that overly stringent zoning will not stop growth, but merely force it elsewhere.

However, for the no growth advocates, there is no way to implement such a policy city-wide.  The “Concept Los Angeles” Plan is a conceptual plan that has no legal force.  It’s a vision of what could be.  To adopt a city-wide no growth policy, one would need to revise zoning area by area, one parcel at a time.

This situation changes with passage of State Assembly Bill 283 in 1978.  The bill requires all zoning within the city to conform with the General Plan by July 1^st, 1981.  City Planning drags its feet, and a lawsuit won by Westside and Valley homeowners forces compliance by March 1988.  I’ll inject here that the city is again out of compliance because they are individually updating the 35 Community Plans and will then roll them up into the General Plan rather than updating the General Plan first and then bringing the Community Plans into compliance.

The last major city-wide success of the “no growth” movement is the passage of Proposition U in 1986.  Proposition U calls for the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) to be reduced by fifty percent in the commercial and manufacturing zones of Height District 1.  Height District 1 covers about seventy percent of all land zoned for commercial and manufacturing use.

When the measure fails to pass in Council, Councilmember Zev Yaroslavsky takes it to Valley and Westside homeowners who gathered enough signatures to get in on the ballot.  Passage of Proposition U ensures that the low-slung commercial streets of Los Angeles become frozen in time.

The Taxpayer Revolt

Also occurring during this time is a homeowner revolt against rising property taxes.  Proposition 13, a 1978 state-wide measure, passes and severely restricts the raising of taxes on residential property.  Property tax, as a percentage of assessed value, is fixed along with the base year for assessment.  The assessed value increases each year, but at a fixed rate that is not tied to the market.  Only when a home is sold does the market value become the new assessed value.

The impact of Proposition 13 is to slow the turn-over of existing housing and to make the building of new housing less attractive to fiscally minded city planners.  When units do enter the market, they are quickly bid up, putting them outside the reach of many low-income earners.  The American middle-class dream of owning a large home with large lawn and backyard and two car garage is moving beyond the reach of many.

The State Enters the Picture

Responding to the need for affordable housing, the State adopts several measures.  One, enacted in 1981, is what has become known as the “Granny Bill.”  This bill permits local jurisdictions to approve the building of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family zones.  The original bill limits dwelling use to two family members aged 60 or older, but this limitation is soon dropped.

A subsequent state bill mandates a twenty-five percent bonus density if developers provide ten percent of the units for lower income households or twenty-five percent for low- or moderate-income households.  Few developers take advantage of the bonus because it is not enough to offset the high cost of land.  The city did not support the bill because it increased density while failing to provide a sufficient supply of affordable housing.

The solution, in 1989, is the passage of AB 1863, a bill that adopts a complicated density bonus indexing scheme tied to the percentage of very low income, low income, and medium income units provided.  With the maximum density bonus capped at thirty-five percent, this bill too fails to create a sufficient supply of affordable housing.  It is more of the same.  Currently, the density bonus cap is fifty percent and parking requirements are reduced or eliminated.

Citizens Gain Rights in the Permitting Process

As City Planning loses control of the zoning process to the “no growth” machine and the State, they are saddled with more responsibility to conduct project reviews.  The State passes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, but it takes a 1987 court decision to make the city comply.  Three more years will pass until a compliance ordinance is adopted.  The Planning Department must conduct CEQA reviews for all projects that are over 40,000 square feet in size, generate 500 or more car trips per day, or provide 25 or more residential units.

The site-plan review limits the granting of “by right” approvals and allows the city to address impacts beyond the scope of CEQA.  Empowered citizens have a right to know about proposed projects and participate in the review process.  Significant impacts must be mitigated to a level of less than significant.  If significant impact can not be mitigated, project approval requires the City Council to issue a notice of over-riding consideration.

Using CEQA to mitigate, reduce, or block new projects in their neighborhoods, outspoken homeowners soon pick up the derisive title “NIMBYs,” standing for “Not in My Backyard.”  Impacts dealing with construction noise, traffic congestion, parking, and aesthetics, tend to be the common issues that lead to a reduced or modified project scope. Some projects are killed either by direct public action or by changing market conditions as the legal struggle plays out.

As the housing crisis grows and worsens, a new interest group rises calling for the State to take stronger action.  The group successfully sues cities who block projects, resulting in expensive fines for every unit of proposed housing denied.  Derisively called “YIMBYs,” standing for “Yes in My Backyard,” they start to take control away from the “NIMBYs.”

For Next Time

The 4^th zoning regime, which starts off slowly and continues today, is the era in which a “pro-growth” machine returns and the State pushes back against “no growth” policies.  In effect, the State takes over control of the local zoning process due to the poor performance of cities to deal with the housing crisis.  The history of the 4^th zoning regime is presented in Part III.

I am indebted to Dr. Andrew Whittemore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for his study entitled “Zoning Los Angeles: A Brief History of Four Regimes” on which this post is based.  I encourage everyone interested in the history of city planning to download a copy.