Russell’s Plan to Ease Traffic Is Jarred by Political Potholes

Los Angeles’ most ambitious plan yet for coping with traffic congestion has become the victim of political gridlock, with a bruising battle between the president of the City Council and the head of city’s Transportation Department pointing up the intensity of the City Hall debate over how to handle growth.

The plan, prepared by Council President Pat Russell with the help of some of the city’s most influential real estate lobbyists, is something of a gamble based on Russell’s contention that the city can contain congestion without calling a halt to its building boom.

Instead of imposing moratoriums on new building or putting new limits on the size of commercial construction, Russell’s plan would require developers to pay for transportation improvements in areas where new buildings will generate more traffic.

The plan is a product of two years’ work and innumerable drafts because Russell has tried to satisfy critics without capitulating to them. Still several weeks away from a council vote, according to Russell’s office, the plan is under attack from those who say it is too soft on development and from developers who say it will tax them out of business.

Russell’s plan has powerful supporters, including Mayor Tom Bradley and Planning Commission President Dan Garcia. But it has met with widespread skepticism, particularly from residents of Russell’s heavily traveled West Los Angeles council district where she is trying out a facsimile of the citywide plan and where she faces a serious reelection challenge in April.

It was Donald Howery, general manager of the Transportation Department, who first put an official stamp on criticism of the plan. Howery argued that there are areas of the city that cannot support new development because congestion is already too great. He also said that the formula for generating developer payments has been watered down by lobbyists who were given too large a role in writing the proposed ordinance.

“You don’t ordinarily have the development community brought into it to the degree that Pat has,” said a source close to Howery. “The city departments wrote the ordinance. Then, Pat’s people rewrote it,” the source said.

Last July, Russell leveled a blistering personal attack against Howery in a letter sent to Bradley, members of the City Council and about 15 influential civic leaders. Russell accused Howery of a “consistent pattern” of bad faith and discourtesy for questioning aspects of her proposed traffic ordinance, known as the Traffic Reduction and Improvement Plan.

“I am concerned and, frankly, offended by the means taken by the Department of Transportation in participating in vital issues of concern to the city and myself personally over the past several months,” Russell’s letter began.

After the letter, Howery’s role in preparing the ordinance diminished and his public criticism of it ceased. However, people close to Howery say the rift between him and Russell has not healed.

“You don’t wash that kind of laundry out in public without lasting repercussions,” said a city official who asked not to be named.

Howery’s reservations are now being echoed by some members of the City Council who question Russell’s faith in the ability of big development to alleviate the traffic congestion it creates.

“As a mechanism for raising money for capital improvements, it’s a fine idea, but to call it a traffic reduction ordinance is a misnomer,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who often clashes with Russell on matters relating to urban growth and congestion.

“The ordinance needs much stronger language allowing the Department of Transportation to scale down building density in some areas,” he said.

Russell’s plan would work in several stages. Areas of heavy congestion would be identified; a range of improvements, from construction of new streets to creation of bus or rail services, would be required, and developers would help make the improvements. They would have to establish ride-sharing programs and pay a fee, based on the size of their buildings, to cover the cost of other transportation improvements.

“The development community doesn’t like the ordinance. They think they are being asked to pay more than their fair share, and, in fact, we are running the risk of pushing all developent out of the city,” said George Mihlsten, a lawyer and lobbyist for developers who has worked closely with Russell to make the plan more palatable to builders.

Mihlsten estimated that the plan will increase a developer’s costs by at least 10%.

Still, he believes that in its present form, the plan is vastly preferable to an earlier draft submitted by the Transportation Department. He said the earlier draft would, among other things, have subjected developers to two-year building moratoriums.

Mihlsten is modest about his own contribution to Russell’s plan, but others say that he, along with law partner H. Randall Stoke, played an important role.

“Randy and George helped in the design of the ordinance and made sure that it had the support of the development community,” said Chris Stewart, who heads the Central City Assn., the main lobbying arm at City Hall for downtown developers.