THE TIMES POLL : Growth Lid Favored; Process Is Mistrusted

Thirty years of rapid population growth and development have left San Fernando Valley residents cynical about zoning decisions and skeptical about the Los Angeles City Council’s inclination to counter the influence of real estate interests, a Los Angeles Times poll has found.

The poll, taken last weekend, showed that Valley residents overwhelmingly favor limits on growth but think that neither they nor local elected officials have much influence over development. And most think that campaign contributions from developers are “legal bribes,” buying City Council members’ backing for construction projects.

City Council members, officials of homeowner associations and political scientists said they were not surprised by the public’s perceptions.

But several said they’re afraid that cynicism could erode local government’s ability to solve problems such as air pollution and traffic congestion. A number of observers said the public’s distrust of how developers win approval for their projects is unfounded, if understandable.

Asked 634 Residents

The Times Poll surveyed a random sample of 634 Valley residents by telephone Aug. 26. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

“There’s too many people in the area and these developers keep building and building, and you can’t breathe anymore,” said Dave Sturm of Northridge, one of those polled. He said he favors limiting growth. “I keep seeing all these huge apartment complexes going up . . . near the Van Nuys Airport, and Sherman Way’s like a freeway now.”

Keith MacMurray of Reseda, another respondent who supports growth limits, said the zoning process favors developers. “It seems like many times they’ve taken advantage of individuals, and . . . some of the areas they build up would have been better left as a greenbelt.”

Sylmar, in the northeast Valley, is the fastest-growing area of Los Angeles. More than 80% of the city’s new homes since 1982 have been built in the north and West Valley. About one-third of the city’s 3.3 million residents live in the Valley.

Sixty-nine percent of those polled said they favor limiting growth even if it would cost jobs and hurt business. Almost as many, 60%, said that when the interests of a landowner conflict with those of the community, the community’s interests should be given greater consideration. And 57% said they lack confidence that the zoning process--the primary instrument used by cities to guide development--will protect their interests.

Middle-Income Respondents

Times Poll Director I. A. (Bud) Lewis said surveys elsewhere have found that limiting growth is usually embraced most strongly by upper-income people. But in the Valley, he said, growth limits are favored most strongly by respondents with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000.

“Interest in the community and home property values and perhaps concern about smog and traffic have seeped directly into the middle class,” Lewis said.

The poll also found that few Valley residents believe that homeowners groups and residents can influence the course of development. Developers were cited by 40% of the respondents as the most powerful force in resolving development questions, and 56% agreed with the statement that “a campaign contribution is a legal bribe.”

In contrast, only 6% of those polled thought that homeowners groups, which many developers say have increased in number and power as slow-growth sentiment spreads throughout Southern California, influence the outcome of growth questions in the Valley. Another 11% of the respondents said Valley residents, as a group, influence such decisions; 13% said the City Council wields the greatest power over growth.

Lewis said those responses demonstrate a “certain cynicism” about the development process.

“People feel you can’t fight City Hall and that therefore neither they nor their homeowners association can have any influence,” said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

“Developers rule by default . . . because homeowners don’t get involved,” Close said. “Most of them find out that if they do get involved, they can change results.”

In reality, many observers say, individual City Council members are often able to exercise virtual veto power over development plans.

But Close and others said that, even if it is inaccurate, the perception of powerlessness undermines confidence in planning, zoning and, ultimately, local government. They said the poll reflects the same disaffection shown by a near-record low turnout, 10.9% of registered voters, in the last city election.

Traffic, smog and lack of open space caused by development, as well as the suspicion of scandal surrounding Mayor Tom Bradley, have heightened citizen distrust, according to Sheldon Kamieniecki, an associate professor of political science at USC.

“If they feel that honest Tom Bradley cannot be trusted anymore, then who can you trust, particularly in the area of development, where it’s been so uncontrolled and unplanned?” he said.

‘Disconcerting’ Feeling

“They just don’t see local government being in control anymore and . . . that’s disconcerting,” Kamieniecki said. He pointed to surveys that show a greater citizen trust of local government than state and federal governments.

Kamieniecki said citizen cynicism about government leaves a vacuum in the planning and development process, as well as in elections, that is often filled by those motivated by special interests.

Valley residents’ cynicism about development disputes extends to positions expressed by homeowner groups. A group of residents recently attempted to force a yearlong delay in the plans of developer Ira Smedra to bulldoze a Studio City carwash, restaurant and gas station by unsuccessfully arguing that the structures were historical cultural landmarks. The City Council eventually stalled the development by requiring an environmental impact report.

But only 16% of the poll’s respondents thought that the residents’ true goal was to preserve the businesses; 49% said the residents were trying to block development of a mini-mall on the site.

William Luddy, a member of the Los Angeles Planning Commission, said the complexity of planning and zoning partly explains people’s fear that matters are beyond their control.

Approval Process Questioned

“People feel separated from the process and that the process doesn’t function, which I think is understandable, in that a lot of it is very difficult to follow,” he said. “It seems that someone is being taken advantage of . . . if they don’t understand how it works.”

Luddy said that during the past three years, planning officials have downzoned more than 250,000 pieces of property, meaning that the size of buildings allowed to be built on those properties has been reduced. If developers and business interests were as much in control of zoning as people think they are, Luddy said, “that wouldn’t have happened.”

But 11th District City Councilman Marvin Braude said residents’ anti-growth sentiment and distrust of zoning decisions is a “straightforward, common sense conclusion” based on “the uncontrolled growth that Los Angeles has allowed.”

“Not all council members are independent of developers,” Braude said. “Some councilmen are very sympathetic to developers, and some councilmen don’t have a sense of what the cumulative impact of development can be. Some have a sense that the property right is more important than any other interest, the public be damned.”

Braude said that homeowner groups are better organized than ever and that their influence on development decisions is on the rise. But “the number of times that homeowners win is trivial compared to the number of times the developer wins,” he said.

Residents ‘Influential’

Councilwoman Joy Picus said developers realize that homeowner groups have become “exceedingly influential” and that they now hire consultants to win neighborhood support.

But she said zoning disputes often become polarized, making it seem that “someone wins and someone loses” no matter what the outcome.

One of the most controversial development projects up for a decision in the Valley is the Porter Ranch project near Chatsworth, where a developer is seeking approval to build 3,000 residences, a regional shopping mall and a 10-story office complex. The plan for that project goes before the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee later this month.

When poll respondents were told the arguments of those favoring and those opposing the plan, and were asked to agree with one side or the other, 58% said they opposed the project. “If you had asked whether people would favor a commercial center and 3,000 houses if the developer were required to solve any traffic or other problems it might cause, I’m confident the results would have been different,” said Paul Clarke, a consultant to Shapell Industries, the Porter Ranch developer.

He said people who have attended public meetings explaining the Porter Ranch plan favored it 2 to 1. He said the phrasing of the poll’s questions “produces a negative bias to the results, which is unfortunate.”

In response, Lewis said: “We tried very hard to state both sides of the issue and we thought we did it.”

Robert Birch, media coordinator for an anti-Porter Ranch group known as PRIDE, said the poll results were encouraging. He said he believed that the Porter Ranch plan would be killed by the City Council.

He said residents must learn that they need to become involved in helping shape developments. “You get involved, you get results,” Birch said. “You stay uninvolved, you suffer.”

Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents the Porter Ranch area, said opposition to development springs from poor development in the past.

“One of the reasons we have problems with traffic is that we didn’t have plans in the past,” he said. “This city grew up and exploded with population after World War II” without demanding that developers pay for street improvements and other items, such as sewers, needed to offset the consequences of their projects. He said the Porter Ranch project, which he strongly supports, provides those improvements.

“Obviously the public is very, very concerned about growth and rightfully so, because they’re being overrun with traffic,” Bernson said.

He said, however, that traffic would improve if the Porter Ranch project is built.

“Porter Ranch is one of the best thought-out plans dealing with the future of this or any area,” he said.

POLL AT A GLANCE

San Fernando Valley residents favor limits on growth.

Q. Do you favor slowing growth and limiting development, even if that may cause jobs to be lost. Or do you favor growth, even if that may erode the quality of life in the San Fernando Valley?

Limits: 69%

Growth: 22%

Don’t know: 9%

Residents are cynical about the power of the city’s planning and zoning process to protect their interests.

Q. How much confidence do you have that zoning decisions will be made to benefit the community rather than real estate developers?

A lot or some confidence: 33%

Little or no confidence: 58%

Not sure: 9%

Q. Which of the following groups have the most influence over growth in the Valley?

Developers: 40%

Business: 19%

City Council: 13%

Valley residents: 11%

Homeowners’ associations: 6%

Environmentalists: 2%

No group: 1%

Not sure: 8%