Residents Swipe at Subway Corridor Development Plan

Homeowners, renters and developers took verbal swipes Thursday at a new development plan for the Metro Rail corridor as the Los Angeles City Planning Commission held its first public hearing into the proposed ordinance to limit growth along the 18.6-mile, downtown-to-San Fernando Valley subway route.

The Metro Rail Transit Corridor Specific Plan is also designed to control development around subway stations.

What planning commissioners heard Thursday was the public voicing concerns ranging from questions about the safety of Metro Rail construction to objections that the proposal would stifle major development projects in the area.

The transit corridor plan, in the making since 1981, is designed to restrict growth in the area regardless of whether the subway is built.

Several hundred people attended the hearing, including about 70 residents of the Beverly-Fairfax area, which is the site of a proposed subway station. Many of them arrived at the packed hearing room in City Hall with small flags that read “No to Metro Rail” and a cardboard sign with the words:

“No Way! L.A. Subway.”

“If Metro Rail is built, the problems that we would suffer would be tremendous,” said Diana Plotkin, vice president of the Beverly Wilshire Homes Assn., citing traffic and parking problems.

She told commissioners that a methane gas explosion at a dress store in that neighborhood last March underscores the potential danger of building the $3.3-billion subway despite safety assurances from the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Some residents of the Beverly-Fairfax area expressed concern that a possible loss of adequate rental housing could displace the elderly if the subway goes through their neighborhood.

That sentiment was echoed by speakers from other areas of the city, including Los Angeles City Councilman John Ferraro, a Metro Rail foe. He said there “is no protection for existing rental housing” under the plan.

Although Daniel P. Garcia, Planning Commission president, sternly warned the audience that the hearing was not a debate over Metro Rail, a number of speakers raised the question of whether the subway will ever be built.

The future of Metro Rail remains uncertain amid a congressional battle over construction funds for the rail project.

The Reagan Administration has held back money earmarked for Metro Rail after deciding that the project is too expensive to build. But last month, the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation approved $130 million in new start-up funds and approved a directive that, if approved by Congress, would require the Administration to obligate $427 million for the first four-mile segment.

Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-Hawthorne) also included a provision for $999 million in Metro Rail funds as part of a highway bill he introduced Wednesday.

Under the development plan, even if Metro Rail fails, large-scale development would still be allowed if any substantial improvement to the traffic system is put into effect, such as a light-rail system or large-scale car pools.

‘Destructive to Private Sector’

But some speakers, including staunch backers of Metro Rail, complained that the accompanying development plan is still inadequate. The Wilshire Chamber of Commerce argued that the plan is “destructive to the private sector.” And a representative of the Building and Property Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles warned that the plan would hamstring growth.

The new proposals would allow developers to increase the floor space of new projects even before the traffic situation is improved, but only if they buy the right to additional construction from other property owners and include such amenities as housing.

In addition to setting limits for the route as a whole, the planners recommended levels of development for areas around proposed Metro Rail stations at Alvarado Street, Wilshire Center, the Miracle Mile, Beverly-Fairfax and Universal City.

Even without Metro Rail, city planners said, they want to encourage high-density residential and commercial development around the proposed station areas to preserve lower levels of development elsewhere in the city.

When some developers argued that those plans would have a “chilling effect” on development, Garcia contended that there is sufficient incentive in this specific plan for prudent development when Metro Rail is built.

“But between now and then, the message is hard times. . . ,” Garcia told developers.