Court Backs Strict Limits on L.A. Construction

Strict limits on construction in many parts of Los Angeles must remain in effect at least until 1988, a judge ruled Friday.

The Los Angeles City Council enacted the limits in an interim ordinance in April.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John L. Cole ruled that the ordinance--which limits development on about a quarter of the city’s land area--must be kept in place until the city reconciles its zoning laws with its more restrictive General Plan.

Cole’s decision incorporated an agreement between the city and homeowner groups that had sued it.

His ruling and the agreement it incorporates mean that “instead of the possibility of the city’s population going to 10 million people--which is what the underlying zoning would have allowed had it been fully implemented--the city’s population will be limited to about 4 million,” according to Jerome C. Daniel, a leader of one of the homeowner groups that sued the city over its land-use policies.

Sets 1988 Deadline

Cole granted the city until Feb. 1, 1988, to bring zoning laws and the General Plan into agreement. The city could achieve conformity either by loosening restrictions in the General Plan or by tightening zoning restrictions.

But Daniel said that because the General Plan reflects existing development in most cases, he believes conflicts between the plan and zoning laws will generally be resolved through zoning changes.

Zoning laws and the General Plan presently conflict in about 200,000 out of the roughly 800,000 land parcels in the city. The City Council has often ignored limits contained in the General Plan and approved new construction under more liberal zoning laws.

The interim ordinance--which was passed under pressure of the homeowners’ lawsuit and a 1979 state law requiring the elimination of discrepancies between the zoning code and the General Plan--requires that permits for new construction generally be issued in accordance with the more restrictive General Plan.

The General Plan is supposed to reflect local views on such issues as building densities and parking. Opponents of rigid adherence to the plan have argued that it should provide only a general outline for development.

In his ruling, Cole also ordered the city to provide quarterly progress reports to a court-appointed referee who will monitor the city’s handling of zoning changes, plan amendments and permit applications.

Daniel, chairman emeritus of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assn. Inc., said he was “delighted” by the ruling.

Agreed to 3-Year Term

The federation agreed to the city having three years to bring its zoning and General Plan into conformity because the interim ordinance already enacted most of the limitations sought by the homeowners, Daniel said.

However, Daniel said developers and property owners remain free to press for changes in the General Plan to allow greater densities.

“I would be a fool if I didn’t say I thought there would be an attempt in some quarters to change the General Plan to fit the zoning,” he said. “But there are too many people watching to let that happen. . . . We’re not going to pack our bags and retreat.”

Friday’s ruling also resolved concerns the federation had about other aspects of the interim ordinance, Daniel said.

Carlyle Hall, an attorney for the Center for Law in the Public Interest who represented the homeowners, said the federation agreed to the three-year timetable, rather than the one-year limit it originally sought, because the court-appointed referee would be monitoring the city’s actions and because “it is in everybody’s interest for them to do the job carefully and get it right.”

The agreement between the federation and the city that provided the basis for Friday’s ruling required the city to drop all appeals in the case and the homeowners to agree not to challenge the interim ordinance. However, the agreement allows the federation to seek court orders blocking the issuance of building permits in cases where builders have applied for permits that would be inconsistent with the General Plan and not fit in with existing neighborhood buildings.

Applications made before passage of the interim ordinance for projects that do not comply with the General Plan, but fit in with existing construction, would probably be approved under a “grandfather” clause, Hall said.