Just when you think it cannot get any worse in LA, it does. Why 333 S. LaCienega is such a striking example of bad city planning.
By Dick Platkin*
“Look ma, no cars at one of the most
congested intersections in Los Angeles.”
Several weeks ago
in Can
the Cheap Perfume of "Approve with Conditions" Mask the Stink of Bad
Planning? I explained how the real purpose of lengthy “conditions of
approval” for large, controversial real estate projects, like 333 S. LaCienega,
is to neutralize community opposition. These
endless promises are intended to defuse challenges to mega-projects, like the
one pictured above in a shorter form than proposed. These promises, transformed into “conditions
of approval,” are nearly worthless, but often succeed in persuading neighborhood
critics to drop their opposition to bad projects.
This sordid process
thrives in Los Angeles because decision makers routinely approve controversial projects
once they receive campaign contributions and once community opposition has been
sidelined by developer promises. In
these situations, the decision makers never bother to ask such obvious planning-related
questions as:
- Does the project conform to the very plans and zones that the City
Planning Commission and the City Council legally enacted after an extensive
preparation and adoption process?
- Does the design of the proposed project match the character and
scale of surrounding residential areas, as required by the City
Council-adopted Community Plans, as well as the design
guidelines now included in the General Plan Framework Element?
- Do public infrastructure and public services have sufficient
capacity – per
Framework Policy 3.3 -- to meet future user demand stemming from the approved
project?
- Will the project’s Environmental Impact Report conclusions be
monitored and updated once the City Council adopts approval ordinances?
- Will project approvals be phased, ensuring that later phases are
contingent on certified compliance with the original Conditions of
Approval?
- Will a developer’s multiple promises to community groups and
elected officials, such as job generation and transit ridership, be accurately
and regularly monitored?
- Will there be real-world consequences, such as revocation of
certificates of occupancy or partial demolition of structures, if promises
are not kept?
Because these
obvious questions are never asked, the legislative actions, such as
spot-zoning, blocked by Measure S, the
Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, predictably lead to truly bad city
planning. For example, the proposed
luxury high rise at the former Loehman’s site – 333 S. LaCienega -- perfectly
illustrates how these bad planning practices proliferate in Los Angeles, with
cascading adverse consequences. Consider
the following:
· Clash with
character and scale of nearby areas:
As should be obvious the rendering above, this project does not comply
with the legally required General Plan findings that the structure be
consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood’s residential area. More specifically, the project will be 240
feet high and have a Floor Area Ratio/FAR (i.e., building mass) of 6.0 on a lot
where height is restricted to 45 feet and building mass is limited to an FAR of
1.5. As for compatible character, the
proposed tower has a nautical design, reminiscent of a cruise ship, while the
surrounding residential buildings have Spanish Revival architecture. Admittedly, a cruise boat might come in handy
when massive earthquakes and climate-change induced sea-level rises permanently
flood the greater Fairfax area, but for now this nautical design is totally at
odds with the area’s character.
· Traffic congestion: The project is
located at one of the most congested intersections in Los Angeles. Called the Bermuda Triangle, the site is the
convergence point of San Vicente Boulevard, Third Street, LaCienega Boulevard, Burton
Way, and LeDoux. No combination of
street signs, signal lights, and traffic officers has managed to keep this
intersection clear during rush hours, and the construction of an auto-centric
luxury tower at this location can only make a bad traffic situation worse.
· Unconvincing public
necessity: Los
Angeles City Charter, Section 558, clearly states that to qualify for
General Plan Amendments and zone changes, a project must conform to public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice. In this
case, the tenants will be extremely rich, paying an average rent of $12,000 per
month for lavish apartments in a building with five star amenities, including
on-call luxury cars and drivers. These
are certainly wonderful features for the 1
percent who can afford them, but the Wilshire Community Plan area has no
demonstrated shortage of parcels that can accommodate such luxury apartments. The use of spot-zoning and spot-planning to
jack up a 45-foot height limit to 240 feet may meet a private need to maximize
profit, but it does not meet any public need. There is no public necessity for a
spot-General Plan Amendment and spot-Zone Change to build a luxury apartment tower
where it is strictly illegal and unwarranted.
· Poor Zoning Practices
eliminate certainty: The related City Charter
finding of good zoning practice is also sharply at odds with this project. The
City Council must take three separate actions to legalize this project: a
spot-zone change, a spot-height district change, and a spot-General Plan
Amendment. Not only is City
Charter Section 555 clear that these legislative actions must apply to
socially and geographically significant areas (i.e., not single parcels), but these
poor planning practices totally eliminate certainty from the planning
process. When individuals, families, or companies
move into an area, they have clear expectations of what can be legally built
near their homes and businesses. But,
spot-zoning completely removes this certainty. Cities like Los Angeles then become the Wild
West. Spot-zoning through a City Council
vote to permit a 240 foot high rise tower where 45 feet is the law eliminates all
predictability from the planning process.
The zones and plan designations that people assumed about their
neighborhood when they moved in can vanish at the snap of a deep-pocketed
developer’s fingers.
· Affordable housing
hype: The project claims that
it needs a major economic incentive, much greater building mass, to accommodate
large luxury apartments, through LA’s
Density Bonus Ordinance. More
specifically, the developer intends to replace 13 of 145 luxury apartments with
low-income units to build a much larger building. Yet the developer has owned this building site
for many years and has virtually no land acquisition costs. In this case, LA’s genuine need for more affordable
housing has become a thin cover story for the construction of 130 luxury rental
apartments where less than half of that figure is legally permitted.
· Misuse of on and
off-site improvements: The project’s
conditions of approval, as voted by the City Planning Commission and the City
Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, include adjacent street trees,
bicycle infrastructure, and a quasi-public fountain. Yet in nearby Los Angeles and Beverly Hills neighborhoods,
there are many existing pedestrian-oriented projects and corridors. Some have been built and operated as basic
municipal services, not as extensions of mega-projects. Others are linked to by-right
buildings that conform to plans and zones, and that do not need City Council
spot-zoning rescue ordinances to usher in public improvements.
· Bad Precedents: To justify height and mass far above legal limits,
the project invokes other nearby buildings that exceed 45 feet. Yet, most of these over-height buildings also
required spot-zoning approval from elected officials to be built. For example, one of these projects, across
the street, at 8500 Burton Way, is a prototype for this project and owned by
the same developer. Yet, when it was
permitted, its neighbors were told it would not become a precedent for more ad
hoc zone changes and general plan amendments.
Nevertheless, the genie is out of the bottle. If the City Council eventually approves 333
S. LaCienega, it is only a question of time until nearby property owners make parallel
requests. They will quickly realize that
similar zone changes and General Plan amendments can green light more lavish
and lucrative high-rise apartment towers on their properties.
The take away from this case study is that a few poor
planning practices eventually open up the flood gates for more more bad
decisions. Their cumulative impact is
municipal demise, but good planning practices can move a city in the opposite
direction. Los Angeles can still become
the progressive, highly livable city that most of residents and visitors truly
desire. It might even eventually become
the global
city that its City Hall boosters magically believe can be achieved through
real estate speculation.
*
Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles City Planner and also a Board
Member of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association. He welcomes comments and corrections at rhplatkin@gmail.com.
-->
Comments