Having been a city planner in the public and private sectors for almost 40 years, I have been exposed to many city and county zoning codes. One of the more difficult zoning codes to comprehend belongs to the city of Los Angeles. One of the reasons for this is that over six decades, the zoning code has been amended thousands of times. Because there has never been a comprehensive rewrite of the document, the code’s coherency is challenging.

While city planners who wrote the various amendments were still employed at City Hall, there was at least a resource to ask about the intent and meaning of these various amendments, but with the retirement of so many of these planners, the institutional knowledge is absent. And so, we are left with confusion, contradiction, vagueness and redundancy in the zoning code.

Under the current leadership of Director Michael LoGrande, the city’s Planning Department is attempting to correct this situation. The goal of the department is to consolidate common findings, clarify ambiguous findings and delete duplicative findings. (Findings are the positive declarations that decision-makers must make in approving a development proposal.)

Most people would accept that efficiency and simplicity are good things. There is, however, a contingent of individuals who are so distrusting of City Hall motives that they have convinced themselves and others that the Planning Department’s recommendations are designed to weaken the development review process and allow rampant development throughout the city. Many of these people besieged the Planning Commission on Oct. 14 to attack the planning staff and their intent.

Opponents of prudent change

These opponents of prudent change argue that by deleting references to the California Environmental Quality Act, the city will somehow avoid having to comply with state law. This is naïve and foolish. As if the mere deletion is tantamount to waving a magic wand that would make these state directives disappear. There is no mention anywhere in the zoning code about compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rules, South Coast Air Quality Management District mandates, California Department of Fish and Game regulations, or dozens of other federal, state or regional laws. Just because they are not mentioned in the zoning code doesn’t mean that they don’t apply.

The notion from the opponents that the consolidated findings will make projects “by right” and not subject to public hearing is simply false. Equally without merit is the assertion that a developer can do a bait and switch by having a 30-story condominium approved but get a building permit for a 40-story project.

Believing that the staff’s modest proposal will allow city planners to grant administrative variances or that projects will suddenly no longer have to comply with Specific Plans are other falsehoods. This is not to say that the proposed language in the revised findings do not need some polishing, but to argue that the amendments will open the floodgates to uncontrolled development is foolhardy.

We need to turn down the rhetoric, take a deep breath and realize that city staff are only trying to add certainty to the development review process, and make it less cumbersome and complex.

Of course, there are those in the city who want anything but an efficient system because delay in reviewing development projects makes them more difficult to finance and build. The bottom line, however, is that whether a project is ultimately approved or denied, we all deserve an answer in a reasonable period of time.

Joel B. Miller is a vice president and principal at Psomas in downtown Los Angeles.