L.A. Given 120 Days to Bring Zoning Into Line With City Plan

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John L. Cole ordered the City of Los Angeles on Monday to bring zoning into conformity with its general plan within 120 days but stopped short of immediately imposing an interim moratorium on development permits.

Noting the “good faith” efforts of the City Council to develop a conformance plan, Cole said that he will extend the deadline if necessary and that he expects periodic progress reports and may appoint a monitor to oversee the city’s efforts. He also reserved the right to issue an injunction on new permits any time it appears warranted.

Under the state’s 1978 planning and zoning law, the city was to conform all zoning with its general plan and 35 community plans by July 1, 1982. Last Sept. 30, Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a bill that would have extended that deadline by five years.

The plans establish guidelines for the city’s development over the next two decades, considering land-use, open space, housing, traffic, noise, conservation and safety.

Cole acted on a civil suit filed Dec. 13, 1984, by 42 Westside and San Fernando Valley homeowners’ associations. The suit demanded conformance and a moratorium on building and other development permits that fail to conform.

Carlyle W. Hall Jr., attorney for the Center for Law in the Public Interest, which prepared the suit, told Cole that he is satisfied with the order.

“He held their toes to the fire by reserving the right to issue an injunction on permits,” Hall said outside court, “and he made it very clear they must act quickly. . . . That is all we asked.”

Deputy City Atty. William L. Waterhouse argued that the city should not be held to the 1982 deadline--or any deadline--until the state pays for the changes. Two state laws provide reimbursement by the state to local government for new or improved local programs ordered by the Legislature.

Waterhouse said the city has spent more than $1 million trying to bring about 200,000 parcels into conformance with the general plan.

“We have been seeking reimbursement since 1979,” Waterhouse told the judge. “We haven’t received a penny.”

Cole refused to void the 1978 law because funds to implement it had not been paid. Technically, he said, any such challenge to a state law must be made in Sacramento Superior Court.

Waterhouse said outside court that any decision to make that challenge would be up to the City Council.

Although Cole indicated that he will remain flexible about his deadline for conformity, he denied Waterhouse’s request that he postpone issuing any order for at least 60 days to allow the City Council to act.