A History of Zoning in L.A. - Part III of III
Welcome back to the 3rd and final part of “A History of Zoning in Los Angeles.” Part I covers the history of the first two zoning regimes in which city planning and zoning serves the interests of small-scale speculators from 1920 to the middle of the Great Depression followed by large-scale developers of single-family-homes beginning with the creation of the FHA in 1934 and running to 1960. Part II covers the history of the 3rd zoning regime, the time in which city planning bows to the pressure imposed by homeowners to maintain a “no growth” policy.
The Appeasement of NIMBYs
Starting in 1990, fueled by large lot zoning, increased parking requirements, the reduction of commercial FARs, and the need for CEQA compliance, suburban homeowners are at the peak of their power. But slowly, over time, housing advocates begin to present an effective case against the suppression of development. State bills are passed, chipping away at local control and the extent of CEQA regulation.
The 1996 Citywide General Plan Framework replaced the 25-year-old “Concept Los Angeles” plan, but it kept the same goals of preserving low-density residential areas and placing all new population growth into revitalized high-density mixed-use districts located close to transit. The new plan framework is not popular among Valley and Westside homeowners who want to maintain their power over local planning. To address their concerns, the 1999 City Charter creates Neighborhood Councils (NCs).
The NCs are voluntary organizations intended to enhance community presence in the decision-making process. Each Council is an official advisory community liaison to City Hall. The role of advisory liaison is a watered-down version of what is initially proposed with each NC holding local zoning power. The fear of a few “no-growth” councils dictating zoning policy that could impact the city results in this diminished role.
Never-the-less, the NCs still carry weight in dealing with City Commission and City Council members. Activist homeowners become NC members to promote their “no growth” views. A 2007 study by USC reports that NC membership does not represent the demographics and the priorities of the people served. While voters rank education as a top priority, the NC board members rank land use.
In the meantime, the city is facing an acute housing crisis. One study finds that the Los Angeles area needs 300,000 housing units by the end of 1999 to address overcrowding. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) reports that the city needs to build 60,000 units per year to bring down the high cost of housing. The typical building rate is 8,000 units per year.
The City Tries to React
The General Plan Housing Element of 1994 reports that there are 1,210,819 existing units in the city, with a capacity to build 958,237 more units, assuming 100 percent build-out. In the 15 years that follow, 84,255 multi-family units and 21,888 single-family units are built. Despite the estimated room to grow, the needed housing is not being built for various reasons. Zoning restrictions play a role, but other factors include the high cost of land, market demand, and limited government funding.
In response to the crisis, the city tries to alternative approaches with varying degrees of success. One measure is for the city to rehabilitate illegal units with city funds and grant the improved units temporary occupancy permits. This approach meets public resistance as a hidden way to get around zoning constraints. Another approach is to introduce several new zoning codes in commercial areas, effectively bypassing Proposition U.
The adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial buildings presents another opportunity for housing provision. The first ordinance to establish adaptive reuse procedures is approved in 1999 for commercial or industrial buildings located in downtown and the adjacent Westlake district. This ordinance is followed in 2002 by the Adaptive Reuse Incentive Areas Specific Plan that expands the program into the historical commercial areas of Hollywood and mid-Wilshire.
Adaptive reuse today is seen as a potential win-win for both housing advocates and those seeking to preserve historic buildings. The upside of building reuse is that it can be more cost-effective and result in fewer environmental impacts compared to tear-down and replacement. The downside of adaptive reuse is that it is very site-specific and can only satisfy a small portion of the housing need.
Closing the Gap and Final Thoughts
In closing, I should point out that the article on which this post is based was published in 2012. Dr. Whittemore calls the 4th zoning regime the era of balance. I assume that he assigned this title due to the slipping grip of “no growth” proponents. As the housing crisis grows, the voices of residents from low-income areas, and people for whom the existing housing market presents no safe or healthy options, become louder and louder to the people in charge.
From my 2024 viewpoint, twelve years later, the pendulum has swung far beyond center. It does not feel like we are living in an era of balance. Pro-growth proponents successfully use the 1982 Housing Accountability Act to sue cities that downsize or block housing development. The effect here in Los Angeles is to render the public appeal process useless, insuring that people must take legal action in court to be heard. An avalanche of State laws mandate zoning policy that strips away a citizens’ right to participate in the site review process.
Meanwhile, the Planning Department and City Council both demonstrate open contempt for the public. Several councilmembers have been indicted for taking bribes and kickbacks from major developers. Historic building nominations have been altered to not upset developer plans. Citizens trying to provide comment are either denied access to meetings, or they are denied time to speak even when present at the meeting. Not that this matters, Mayor Bass has directed City Planning to rubber stamp more projects approved which by-passes the need for public hearings.
The 4th planning regime does not look like an era of balance to me, but a hybrid of past regimes. From the 1st regime, we have speculators who spot zone, tear down existing housing, and flip the property with no real project in mind. From the 2nd regime we have a return of the growth machine, but where once developers freely built outward, they now build upward. Only time will tell if we are truly living in an era of balance or if we are entering a new 5th regime.
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 blog is based. I encourage everyone interested in the history of city planning to download a copy.