Voters to Decide Fate of Lawndale General Plan

The Lawndale City Council has unanimously agreed to let a citywide vote decide the fate of the General Plan, the document governing all zoning and development in the city.

Ordinance 82, a 26-year-old city law that permits residents to vote on the General Plan, will be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot. The law, which was adopted in 1963, was declared unconstitutional in a state attorney general’s opinion in 1974 and has never been implemented.

Based on the 1974 state ruling, the City Council adopted the city’s first General Plan in 1976 without placing it before voters.

In the last year, at the urging of Lawndale activists Steve Mino and Herman Weinstein, city officials asked the state to re-evaluate the 1974 ruling. State officials reversed themselves last December, labeling the 1974 ruling “erroneous.”

Options Spelled Out

The Nov. 7 ballot, which will also list local school district candidates, will offer two, and possibly three, choices on Ordinance 82.

One option is to repeal the ordinance. If voters choose that option, the power to approve the General Plan would remain with the City Council. The second option is to amend the ordinance, allowing residents to vote on major revisions to the General Plan. Ordinance 82 currently does not address revisions.

The third option is to vote for the original 1976 General Plan.

The council said it will further review the third option before deciding whether to place it on the ballot. City Atty. David J. Aleshire said it was uncertain how the third option would affect the status of Ordinance 82. The council also said it would further define what should be considered a major revision.

City Councilwoman Carol Norman said she was relieved that the ordinance is finally going to be put to a citywide vote.

“The council has never meant to keep control of the General Plan away from the public. We were just confused if they wanted (Ordinance 82) or not.”

Mino, present at the council meeting Wednesday, said he supported the citywide vote but was leery about the language of the ballot measure.

“I’ll be satisfied when I make sure the ballot has clear, honest language on it,” he said.