Citizen Review Now Can Save Zoning Outrage Later

More than once the city of Los Angeles has broken faith with its citizens in matters of planning.

For eight years the city ignored a state law that requires zoning to be in accordance with community plans. Only a citizen lawsuit in 1985 could bring the city into compliance, resulting in downzoning Los Angeles from a population capacity of 10 million to 4 million.

In 1987 Los Angeles again was forced by citizen lawsuit to perform environmental-impact reports on major construction projects--something that the city had never demanded of developers even though requirements of the state environmental-quality law were clear.

Today Los Angeles continues to ignore the clear mandates of laws governing development and zoning. The City Council recently waived its own parking requirements to accommodate a major development in West Los Angeles. And in the San Fernando Valley the Department of Building and Safety gave approval for a 6-story office building, 95 feet tall, to be constructed in an area zoned for buildings not more than 45 feet, or three stories, in height.

These projects are merely examples of a citywide phenomenon. Citizens are not notified when a building permit is issued. Consequently they often determine the magnitude of a project only when it is too late to do anything about it, after construction is well along.

What accounts for the city’s apparent intransigence on such matters? The answer lies not in some form of conspiracy but in the politics of bureaucracy. The Department of Building and Safety is charged with making the initial determination of whether a particular building project meets all the zoning and building-code requirements. The department handles more than 40,000 permits a year, and probably less than 1% result in public controversies.

Thus the building and safety administrator who makes the zone consistency determinations--including height, density, parking, etc.--typically spends most of his or her time working with developers and contractors, trying to resolve their problems consistent with what is understood to be the city’s rules. However, when virtually 100% of the administrator’s time is spent serving a particular constituency, the natural human inclination is to identify with that constituency and to a liberal interpretation of the rules.

The San Fernando Valley office building serves as an interesting example of the process. While the zoning law now governing Ventura Boulevard says that “no building or structure” shall exceed three stories and 45 feet, the Department of Building and Safety has liberally construed that language. First, it has allowed the developers to divide the structure into three separate buildings by the drawing of imaginary lines through the fire walls--frame walls with double layers of sheetrock. Then, because the building is on a slope rising above Ventura Boulevard, the department permitted each “separate” building to be measured from a different point on the slope. Thus three stories become six, and 45 feet become 95. Theoretically there is no limit to the number of stories that could be built in one structure, assuming that the slope was steep enough.

The city’s building code says that buildings may , not must , be separated in this fashion. But in exercising such discretion in order to accommodate a developer, the Department of Building and Safety allowed--without so much as a second thought--a project to proceed that most likely will destroy the value of adjacent homes. It is no wonder that citizens become frustrated and resort to the courts and initiatives in protest.

Yet employment of the initiative is not necessary to cure the problems cited. A few simple changes to the rules could protect the community and ensure that the intent of the law was being followed. At the same time, such changes would not bring an undue burden to the process of issuing building permits.

First, the city Planning Department should review each request for a permit to determine whether it is consistent with the community plan and with zoning. Thus differences in interpretation could be worked out before the damage was done. Once a permit is issued, it should be tentative for a period of 30 days. A large sign, describing the permit and project, should be posted at the building site to describe the project and inform neighbors that the city intended to issue the permit unless an appeal was filed. Provisions would be made for the public to review the plans during the appeal period. The program would be self-financing through fees. In all probability not more than a slim percentage of the projects would be appealed, resulting in minimal disruption.

Cities like San Francisco and Seattle already have such regulations. Los Angeles, which has suffered such acrimonious debate over growth and where the public has ceased to trust the decisions of its administrators, should have no less. Failure to enact reform will simply lead to more lawsuits and zoning by initiative, a result favorable to neither the development industry nor to the community at large.