L.A. to Enforce Building Limits

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13 to 2 Tuesday in favor of qualified enforcement of the city’s General Plan, which would impose strict new limits on the quantity and size of future construction projects in many parts of town.

The council, which had been postponing a vote on the issue since January, acted Tuesday under the threat that if the city did not begin enforcing its General Plan by Thursday, a Superior Court judge probably would prohibit it from issuing any further building permits for projects not consistent with the plan.

Enforcement of the plan could affect the course of development of 200,000 parcels, or about one-fourth of the city’s land area.

Lobbying for Exemptions

The stricter limitations on new construction presented a bitter pill to the city’s building industry, which has been lobbying intensively for the last two months for a series of exemptions that would make the plan less onerous to real estate developers.

Several of the exemptions sought by real estate lobbyists were adopted as part of the enforcement ordinance approved Tuesday by the council. The council also indicated that, during the next 30 days, it will be considering amendments to the ordinance that could soften the effect of the plan.

“There are sometimes, believe it or not, reasons to build buildings in the city of Los Angeles,” said Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores.

Opponents of the enforcement ordinance were unable to build a 30-day grace period into the new law. Instead, the council marshaled more than the 12 votes needed to pass the ordinance on an urgency basis, meaning that it will go into effect as soon as Mayor Tom Bradley signs it and it is published in a daily newspaper. Bradley signed the ordinance Tuesday afternoon, according to his press office.

Prolonged Debate

Although the council took swift action Tuesday, it has been debating the matter since January, when Superior Court Judge John L. Cole ordered the city to bring its 1946 zoning code into conformity with the plan. The plan, adopted piecemeal during the last 20 years, is a product of concern over congestion and pollution and allows fewer and smaller new buildings than permitted by the zoning.

The council’s delayed reaction to the judge’s order caused some members to accuse colleagues of stalling in order to encourage what Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky described as “an orgy of applications” by builders hoping to get projects approved by the city before the General Plan was enforced.

Councilman Ernani Bernardi said there has been a 40% increase in the number of applications for building permits since the judge issued his ruling in January.

According to council sources, the city attorney’s office warned late last month that if the council did not take action by April 4, Judge Cole probably would enjoin the city from issuing any further building permits for projects not consistent with the General Plan.

The judge’s order requiring enforcement grew out of a suit by a federation of neighborhood organizations who accused the city of ignoring a 1979 state law requiring the elimination of discrepancies between the zoning code and the General Plan. Those discrepancies exist for about 200,000 parcels of land, according to the Planning Department.

Pushed by Finn

The council’s vote Tuesday to abide by the plan was in part a tribute to the efforts of Councilman Howard Finn, the chairman of the council’s Planning and Environment Committee, to fashion a law that was broadly acceptable.

Before the vote, real estate lobbyist Richard Wirth testified that his industry could live with the ordinance.

Nevertheless, several council members made it clear that, despite the favorable vote, a controversy looms over just how the plan will be enforced.

While voting for the ordinance, council members Hal Bernson, David Cunningham and Flores expressed their distaste for various aspects of the law. And Councilmen Gilbert Lindsay and Arthur Snyder voted against it.

Snyder argued that the General Plan was never meant to be more than “a road map for the future,” and that its enforcement, far from penalizing major developers, will have a devastating effect on people of limited means who invested their savings in property, which the plan will in some cases now prohibit them from developing.

The ordinance does, however, exempt proposed buildings in certain circumstances from the new law.

For example, the exemptions apply to property in the downtown business district that comes under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency and to apartment projects, anywhere in the city, in which 20% of the apartments are rented to people of low to moderate incomes.