Yaroslavsky Wants UCLA to Allow City Role in Development

Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky has asked UCLA to give the city the right to vote on its 4.45-million-square-foot, long-range development plan to save “the surrounding Westwood community from being engulfed by unchecked growth” on the campus.

The request, if granted, would bring the university under local land-use regulations, an unprecedented situation. As a state institution, UCLA answers only to the UC Board of Regents on growth matters. The Westwood-area councilman also proposed that the city have a voice in any plan to increase the number of students or employees on campus.

Yaroslavsky’s request was prompted by a 15-year growth plan released in March that would increase the size of the campus square footage by about one-third. Chancellor Charles E. Young said then that the expansion is essential to keep UCLA in the top echelon of teaching and research facilities.

The development plan includes replacement of all patient rooms at UCLA Medical Center and construction of a residential village for 2,700 graduate students and faculty on what is known as “Lot 32,” a finger of land that reaches down from the main campus and abuts Wilshire Boulevard, west of Gayley Avenue.

Responding to Yaroslavsky’s request, Vice Chancellor Peter W. Blackman said in a written statement that he is confident the 15-year plan can be fulfilled in a manner “that remains sensitive to community concerns.” However, Blackman said, the issues could be resolved within the current structure without allowing the city control over UCLA’s plans.

In a letter to Young, Yaroslavsky commended the plan for the residential village and said he did not have a problem with space for libraries or child-care facilities. But Yaroslavsky said he quarrels with adding 3 million-plus square feet of medical, academic and administrative facilities to nearly 3 million square feet of development already under construction or in the pipeline.

The combined square footage represents “more than all the commercial development along Wilshire Boulevard in the Westwood community. . . . It is a staggering figure,” Yaroslavsky said.

Concurring with a suggestion made at a public hearing on the plan, Yaroslavsky advised UCLA to look outside the congested Westwood area to build some of its facilities.

Yaroslavsky also called on the school to abandon plans for a conference center that would include rooms for overnight lodging in the southwest area of campus that runs west of Gayley Avenue. “This is simply more than the infrastructure can absorb,” he wrote.

Separate reports from city departments question the formula by which the university concluded that the expansion would add no additional traffic to the already gridlocked community. Principal City Transportation Engineer Allyn Rifkin called on UCLA to build its own exit from the San Diego Freeway, among other traffic mitigation efforts.

City engineers also opined that the expansion will have regional impact and thus should be subject to review by public agencies to monitor its effect on air quality and other environmental concerns.

Local homeowner groups who also oppose the plan were not immediately impressed at the prospect of turning the matter over to the city, which they allege has a poor track record with respect to regulating commercial development in Westwood. “We’re at gridlock now, so to turn over more for the city to decide would (lead to) double gridlock,” said Sandy Brown, vice president of the Westwood-Holmby Property Owners Assn.

Friends of Westwood President Laura Lake said she doubted whether UC regents would cede control to local government. And, if they did, it would be like “the fox guarding the chicken.”

UC Berkeley’s chancellor last year signed an agreement with Berkeley giving the city an advisory role on campus development. But the agreement is not binding, according to university spokesman Ray Colvig, because “the university cannot abdicate its responsibility as a state agency.”