Zoning Reform Delays, Errors Hit

Los Angeles’ chief zoning administrator has expressed concern that, because of internal foot dragging and incompetence, the city may have difficulty meeting a court-ordered deadline for completing the controversial task of reforming its zoning laws.

Chief Zoning Administrator Franklin P. Eberhard warned last week in a memorandum to his boss, Planning Director Calvin Hamilton, that a combination of staff mistakes and management delays by Planning Department personnel was retarding the reform process, which was mandated by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

“The message that is coming through is perhaps that the project is not as high priority as we were led to believe,” Eberhard wrote.

Eberhard’s memorandum was made available to The Times Wednesday.

Zoning reform, which could restrict the scope of new building on about one-fourth of the city’s land, has aroused the anger of real estate developers and some members of the Los Angeles City Council who warn that it could have a disastrous impact on the construction industry here.

Lobbyists for the building industry also have been critical of Hamilton, warning that his department will take longer than necessary to complete the reform process and be unnecessarily hard on developers.

Repeated efforts to reach Hamilton Wednesday were not successful.

The city’s 40-year-old zoning laws came under attack late last year in a suit by several homeowners’ groups who argued that city officials had ignored a 1979 state law requiring that the zoning be brought into conformity with the city’s General Plan. The plan calls for tougher restrictions on the size and number of new buildings.

In January, Judge John L. Cole, ruling in the suit, gave the city one year to bring its zoning code in line with the plan. Tuesday, the City Council reluctantly adopted an interim ordinance requiring that builders comply with the General Plan until the differences in the plan and the zoning code can be reconciled.

It is the process of reconciliation that Eberhard addressed in his memorandum.

He said that staff members assigned to the job “are slow or make many mistakes in their work,” and he said that “the entire planning of the work program is languishing due to the inability of management to meet and make decisions on the admittedly difficult choices which have to be made.”

As a consequence of those problems, Eberhard said that the first phase of the reform process will have to be postponed one month. He added that the problems could make it difficult to finish the project on time.

Carlyle Hall, a lawyer representing the homeowners’ groups who sued the city, said the memorandum made it clear that the city was not responding in good faith to the judge’s order. Hall, who showed the memorandum to The Times, said he planned to ask the judge to appoint a monitor to oversee the zoning reform process. He did not say how he obtained the memo.

Asked to comment on the matter, Eberhard, who appeared troubled by the news that his memorandum had been released to the press, said that during the last few days Hamilton had made a concerted effort to expedite the reform process.

Hamilton “has made some strong efforts to deal with the issue. . . . He has communicated back to his staff that (the project) is the No. 1 priority of the department,” Eberhard said.

Eberhard said he thought the job still could be done in time to meet the judge’s deadline.

“It can be done, although it depends on the amount of resources the city can devote to the task,” he said. Eberhard’s memorandum states that he did not believe that Hamilton meant to downplay the importance of the task.

“I know this is not management’s intent, and I trust you will take steps necessary to address these issues,” Eberhard wrote.

But building industry lobbyists have made clear their displeasure with Hamilton’s role in the zoning reform process, and they have achieved some success in keeping certain property, notably the downtown business district, from the Planning Department’s jurisdiction.

Moreover, Councilman Hal Bernson proposed Monday that the zoning reform process, instead of being carried out by Hamilton’s department, be conducted by a private company under contract with the city. The proposal is being studied by a council committee and the Planning Commission.