One of the best sites in the Los Angeles blogosphere is
Los Angeles City Nerd. The City Nerd boasts an encyclopedic knowledge of our fair city and generously shares it with his (or her) readers through interesting and entertaining posts.
On Monday, the City Nerd published
a brief post about a subject very near and dear to my heart: zoning. Unfortunately, it didn't reflect an accurate understanding of how zoning has worked (and hasn't worked) in Los Angeles. I will share it with you here:
Did you know that Los Angeles was the first large city in the nation to adopt zoning ordinances that distinguish between residential and commercial properties?
So, if the City invented it, I guess the City can ignore it, too.
With all due respect to the City Nerd, I feel the above statements present a somewhat inaccurate and misleading perception of zoning laws and how they work. As an urban planner, I'd like to spend a few minutes educating the City Nerd (and anyone else who might be interested) on what zoning is, and what it isn't.
Los Angeles didn't "invent" city-wide zoning; our longtime rival, New York City, is credited with that innovation. However, Los Angeles was among the first large cities to follow the Big Apple's lead in regulating land use.
Many people, especially those from more traditional cities on the East Coast, are apt to survey our city's sprawling landscape and proclaim that urban planning is nonexistent here. They couldn't be more wrong, as Los Angeles should be considered one of the most planned cities in the world! Both the City and County (which controlled most of the vast suburban hinterlands) were quick to implement zoning and comprehensive planning. The early development of a Countywide highway plan, and the later design of our well-known freeway network, were key components of the effort to give Los Angeles a desirable and distinctive urban form.
While the intent of early zoning ordinances was to distinguish between industrial, commercial, and residential areas, these laws have become increasingly complicated. After the Supreme Court validated the use of zoning in the landmark case of Euclid v. Ambler in 1926, cities across the country became emboldened to extend the reach of zoning beyond the obvious need to keep noxious factories away from homes.
Not only does zoning keep industry, commerce, and residences seperate, but it keeps different types of industry, commerce, and residences from each other! Classifications were developed to seperate "light" and "heavy" industry, "neighborhood" and "regional" commercial, and of course, single-family residences and apartment buildings. Today, Los Angeles and most other cities boast dozens of zoning classifications, with a dizzying combination of letters and numbers that dictate very specific types of land use.
A second and lesser-known aspect of zoning is the provision of "development standards." Within each zoning classification, there are regulations concerning details like building height and mass, signage, landscaping, and of course, parking. In Los Angeles, parking has always been a major concern, and zoning has helped to ensure that our city remains oriented to the automobile. You can't build anything in this town without parking, and lots of it. Different types of land uses require different amounts of parking; for example, a retail store might require 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of building area, while an office might require 1 parking space for each 400 square feet of building area -- while a studio apartment might require 1 parking space, a single-family residence might require 2 parking spaces -- and so forth.
From the 1920's into the 1970's, Los Angeles did "stick with" its zoning, but zoning laws could be changed quite easily, and variances were given freely. Furthermore, the zoning was generally very permissible to begin with. The "planning profession" was still in its infacy, and its leaders focused on technical concerns over zoning, not long-range planning or citizen participation. The political climate favored growth and economic development, so developers were given free reign to exercise their property rights.
As development boomed after World War II, some neighborhoods were shielded from change, while others weren't. Wealthy neighborhoods like Hancock Park wielded political power to ensure that streets of single-family residences maintained intact, while poorer neighborhoods in Hollywood and South Los Angeles saw apartment buildings and industrial uses encroach on their blocks. In communities throughout Los Angeles, the environmental impacts of intense development (to views, air quality, traffic, etc.) were given little attention even as the quality of life began to erode.
Once the environmental movement gained traction, a "sea change" occured in urban planning. In the early 1970's, the State of California passed several laws that made zoning less maleable. The landmark California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required intense scrutiny of many developments to ensure compatibility, sustainability, and mitigation of negative impacts. Other laws required zoning to be consistent with a comprehensive long-range plan for development (the "General Plan"), preventing politicians from giving easy zone changes to favored projects. In addition, the use of variances and "zone exceptions" was curtailed.
A few years later, City Planning Director Cal Hamilton developed a new General Plan, the "Centers Concept," that both reinforced the existing development pattern while offering a bold new direction for the city. The plan encouraged higher-density development in "centers" like Miracle Mile, Century City, and Van Nuys, while preserving low densities in most other neighborhoods. The "Centers Concept" envisioned a Los Angeles with a more rational urban form, balancing sprawl with focused activity hubs that could support walking and mass-transit.
From the late 1970's into the 1980's, the City didn't "ignore" its zoning; in fact, it clung to it religiously. Politicians didn't like the "Centers Concept" because it called for higher-density development in fewer areas than the zoning laws did. Developers continued to build huge apartment complexes in the middle of single-family neighborhoods and huge office towers in the middle of one-story commercial strips in defiance of Cal Hamilton's efforts.
By not ignoring its zoning, the City of Los Angeles paid a high price. Numerous lawsuits challenged the fact that the City's zoning wasn't in compliance with its General Plan, as mandated by State law. In some areas, "downzoning" did occur to match the plan, while in others the Plan was amended to allow the higher densities allowed by zoning. Cal Hamilton was pushed out of the Planning Department. Then, in 1987, voters approved Proposition U, which cut zoning density indiscriminately throughout the City. Residents were fed up with huge projects being built in areas where they didn't belong. However, by endorsing Proposition U they ended up undermining the "Centers Concept" that would have channeled growth to areas where it made sense.
Over the years, "sticking to" zoning lead to other negative consequences. By keeping commercial uses away from residences, "corner stores" and other neighborhood-serving uses became illegal. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a loaf of bread, Angelenos had to drive a mile or two to the nearest shopping center. Similarly, the "mixed-use" buildings that are prominent in many older parts of Los Angeles (apartments on top of local shops) have been illegal for decades. By demanding that single-family neighborhoods be strictly maintained, "granny units" and other types of non-intrustive rental housing became illegal in most parts of the city. The demand for large apartment and condo developments would've been tempered by the addition of small "second units" that wouldn't change the character of suburban streets.
In 2006, the City cannot legally "ignore" its zoning. Variances, while still possible, are limited to 2 a year and are subject to a high "burden of proof" through public hearings at the Planning Commission. Zoning can still be changed, though it's a much more difficult endeavor now that CEQA is in effect and most citizens are knowledgeable about planning issues and much more politically active, even in poorer neighborhoods like Boyle Heights and South Park. In fact, all of us Angelenos are forced to "stick with" the zoning we have, despite the fact that it's antiquated and doesn't seem to prevent our quality of life from declining further each and every year.
The discussions on "inclusionary zoning" have arisen because of the fact that we don't "ignore" zoning. By preventing "second units" and mixed-use buildings and by requiring large amounts of covered parking for residential development, the City has helped to constrain the supply of housing and make it extremely expensive. Inclusionary zoning is a new twist: not only would the City say how many units you can build on your property, it would say how many have to be "affordable" (i.e. offering subsidized prices and/or rents). I'm not sure if inclusionary zoning is the right solution to our City's "housing crisis," but planners have certainly ignored the economic implications of zoning policy for too long.
"Eminent domain" has nothing to do with zoning, though it figures in the larger story of development in Los Angeles. For more on this controversial subject,
read this. Eminent domain is the power of the government to "take" your property for a "public use" provided that it pays a "fair market value." The government is empowered to take your property regardless of the property's zoning and what land use it proposes to establish. For example, a school district could take property in an industrial area and build a school amidst factories and scrap yards if it so chooses; government agencies don't have to follow zoning laws.
The issue of "condo conversions" isn't related to zoning, either. Zoning laws dictate that a property can be used for multi-family use, not that it can be used as rental housing or as for-sale housing. However, condo conversions require subdivision approval through the Planning Department, which is also subject to CEQA and public hearings. Again, it's an issue of housing affordability (like inclusionary zoning) that planners have typically eschewed but ought to address in the coming years.
After this long ramble, the "take home" point is that zoning is fluid, not fixed. It shouldn't be ignored, but it should be challenged. We can't "stick with it" because Los Angeles is a dynamic place; the collective vision of our urban future has shifted greatly in the last 80 years...even in the last 5. There will never be a time where "everyone would get along" and there will be no need for futher discussion on zoning and other issues of planning and development. At least I hope there won't, because then me and my brethren would be out of a job!
