Slow-Growth Foes at City Hall Put Off Dilution Bid

After weeks of legislative maneuvering, City Hall opponents of a Los Angeles slow-growth initiative on Tuesday reluctantly dropped their attempt to dilute the measure before it is voted on Nov. 4.

Facing major new legal obstacles, City Council President Pat Russell and Planning Commission President Daniel P. Garcia told reporters that they will postpone until after the election work on an ordinance designed to put thousands of commercial properties out of reach of the initiative’s sweeping building limits.

The decision means that hastily arranged public hearings on the ordinance, which had been scheduled for Thursday in the San Fernando Valley and downtown, will be indefinitely postponed. The delay in enacting the ordinance is significant because, if the initiative is approved as expected, it will be much more difficult for developers to obtain permits for large commercial projects.

Despite her retreat, Russell strongly defended her effort to head off some of the initiative’s effects. “I felt it was the only responsible planning action a city official could take,” she said, claiming that the initiative would stifle growth where it is needed, including low-income neighborhoods. However, she said that because of “debate that has centered on procedural problems,” the public was losing sight of the issue. Proponents of the initiative, who dubbed the Russell-Garcia counteroffensive a “loophole” ordinance, claimed victory. “We’re delighted,” said Westside Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, one of the initiative’s authors. “This is what we’ve wanted. . . . This will now give the opportunity to the voters to vote on Proposition U without any obstruction, any undermining. . . .”

The legislative counteroffensive was the centerpiece of the campaign against the initiative, particularly since efforts to raise money for a political campaign had sputtered.

Key opponents of Proposition U expressed disappointment at Tuesday’s announcement and said there is now probably no way to fight the measure. “At this point in time it doesn’t make any sense at all to make an effort to defeat the initiative,” said Bill Robertson, executive secretary of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which strongly opposes the initiative.

Proposition U, which is backed by many suburban neighborhood groups, would cut in half the allowable size of buildings on more than 70% of the commercial and industrial property in the city, excluding major high-rise centers such as downtown and the Wilshire Corridor.

Russell and Garcia, backed by Mayor Tom Bradley, labor leaders and development interests, were pushing the ordinance to shield about 12% of the city’s commercial property from the building limits. A rushed, massive public hearing had been scheduled for Thursday on the proposal, which would have given thousands of properties from the Harbor area to Pacoima new zoning designations not affected by the initiative.

But Yaroslavsky and Councilman Marvin Braude, the initiative’s co-author, disclosed Monday that proper legal notice had not been given for the hearing. The city attorney’s office said the ordinance could not be legally adopted until the error was corrected. In an opinion issued Tuesday, city lawyers said “failure to correct the notice defect may be fatal” to city’s ability to defend the ordinance.

On Tuesday, Russell said Proposition U should be defeated because the council--before it stumbled over the recent legislation--last month had adopted another ordinance that she said is more balanced than the initiative. Like the initiative, that ordinance limits commercial development in much of the city.