L.A. Faces a Sounder Future if Growth Holds Few Surprises

What kind of a city do we want Los Angeles to be in 10 or 20 years? Do we have the wisdom to recognize that we face a crisis in land use and transportation, and that time is running out?

Proposition U, the “slow-growth” initiative passed by voters last November, was a start toward a more orderly Los Angeles. But Proposition U only cut by half the building rights on most commercial properties within the city. Our visions will never become reality as long as municipal government is unable to subordinate the short-term appetites of individual property owners and building proposals to the long-term interests of the city.

Our failure to make such a commitment will mean continued zoning surprises that do nothing but undermine the stability of Los Angeles’ neighborhoods.

A careful community-by-community analysis of appropriate uses and densities is desperately needed. Many areas of the city, such as the Wilshire and Ventura Boulevard corridors, are choking on traffic brought on by pell-mell development while other areas, such as the Crenshaw District and North Hollywood, go begging for growth or redevelopment. Thus it is sensible to restrict development in areas of the city that experience gridlock while being more flexible in portions that have the required infrastructure such as greater street and sewer capacity.

We also must make a commitment to encourage the production of affordable housing throughout the city. In recent years huge regional employment centers have been created in high-income areas, but the housing nearby is out of reach to all but the affluent. What is needed is a housing policy that requires residential developers to set aside a percentage of new units at rents that are affordable to wage earners--as is now being done in Westwood. This concept, coupled with zoning incentives, can work if the city is committed to implement, not just enunciate, such a policy.

There also needs to be a better balance between local and regional services. Before the passage of Proposition U, the city’s liberal zoning allowances made virtually every commercial street a prospective regional center. Communities that had relied for 40 years on neighborhood stores and community services saw them disappear. Now more encouragement needs to be given to businesses that serve local needs. This would save wear and tear on our streets and nervous systems.

Finally, we must maintain our commitment to an effective mass-transportation system. We have no choice in the matter. Southern California must be willing to make the painful investment to improve our ability to get places if it is to survive as an economically viable and environmentally livable place. We must make a commitment to various strategies--everything from ride-sharing, better traffic controls and more efficient bus transportation--in order to better manage the limited street capacity and to improve our air quality.

But these measures may not be enough. That is why we propose a long-overdue, albeit controversial, reform to city law--one that would give the city control of major developments that are likely to have a significant effect on their surroundings.

Under current law, a developer who meets the zoning requirements--no matter how large the project and no matter how significant the effect--is allowed to build that project and the city is powerless to review or attach conditions to it. Even Proposition U does not require the city’s scrutiny of individual projects that could adversely affect a neighborhood. For example, CBS and Farmer’s Market could build nearly 4 million square feet of commercial development (half the density of Century City) on the corner of Beverly and Fairfax, by right. As a result of such practices, Los Angeles has earned the reputation of being easier on developers than almost any other city in the state.

Our proposal would give city officials the authority to undertake environmental assessments, conduct public hearings and determine whether developments in excess of 50,000 square feet should be approved, denied or modified before being granted a permit to build.

While this change in city law would raise the level of uncertainty for 50 to 60 developments a year, it would prevent disruptive developments like the Fujita Building in Encino and the Westside Pavilion in West Los Angeles--buildings that never would have been erected in their current form if the city had had the power to review and modify them in advance.

It is up to city officials to move with a sense of urgency to make the necessary resources available to properly plan this city for the 21st Century. While the planning process is full of contradictions and competing economic and social values, we must face up to the challenge of creating a balanced growth policy for Los Angeles.