Old Ideas Limit Valley’s Future, Study Suggests

Despite its growing diversity, the San Fernando Valley is hobbled by its stereotype as a suburban paradise--a perception that stifles appropriate development, clouds political thinking and drives a wedge between rich and poor, according to a UCLA study released Tuesday.

From cultural opportunities to mass transportation, low-income residents of the Valley often are shortchanged by city and county governments that devote time and resources to wealthier neighborhoods, the report says.

At the same time, however, middle-class and wealthy residents watch with dismay as the quiet neighborhoods they settled decades ago are overrun with more buildings, more people and more hassles.

And authors of the 350-page study, titled “Beyond Suburbia: The Changing Face of the San Fernando Valley,” caution that the quality of life in America’s prototypical suburb is further jeopardized by political leaders who often are out of touch with the Valley’s changes. Over the last decade, the Valley has grown 20%--comprising more than one-third of Los Angeles’ overall population. Non-Latino whites, comprising three out of every four Valley residents a decade ago, now make up 57% of the population. Latinos constitute 32% of the Valley population.

Many of the statistics cited in the report are not new and come from the U.S. census and Los Angeles municipal government. But the report attempts to wrap diverse sources together to create what it says is so often lacking--a unified view of the Valley’s needs and people.

For example, about 11% of the Valley’s residents live in poverty. But many people still think of the Valley as only white and middle class, said Jim Gilbert, one of the report’s authors. “Those things are no longer true, but policy makers--like the general public--have those ideas in their head and are making policy based on erroneous and outdated information.”

Specifically, the study suggests that:

* The planning process is held hostage by well-heeled and well-organized groups--including homeowners associations--interested in little beyond their back yards. Furthermore, the city’s community plans, which govern growth in specific areas, are out of date and barely followed. Poor residents and renters often have no voice in deciding what gets built where.

* New housing is built in areas that don’t need it--like the Southwest--while little is constructed in areas that do--like the Northeast. The report criticizes the city’s dependence on private developers to set the pace for building and points out that the Valley has only one public housing development--San Fernando Gardens in Pacoima.

* Transit decisions are made with little regard to where transportation improvements are actually needed. For instance, fewer than 6% of the Valley’s residents work downtown, yet major transit networks such as Metrolink and Metro Rail terminate in the city center. And although half of the residents who depend on public transit for transportation live in the Northeast Valley, few improvements are planned there.

* Poor residents also are locked out of cultural opportunities because nearly all of the Valley’s theaters and museums are too expensive and too far away to be of much use. The report concludes that the Valley fails “overwhelmingly” to provide cultural amenities for the poor.

“Since the Valley is no longer demographically homogenous, it more properly should be referred to as ‘the Valleys,’ ” the report reads. “Indeed, one can find palatial estates in the Encino and Chatsworth areas and dilapidated apartment buildings in Van Nuys.”

Few Valley leaders were surprised by the report’s findings.

“Change in the Valley confronts a lot of people,” said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. “People in general don’t like change and I think the Valley has changed dramatically over the last 10 to 15 years. That’s life.”

Close agreed with assertions that transit lines appear to be routed more by politics than by need. But he took issue with recommendations that some single-family neighborhoods be opened up to more affordable condos and townhomes.

“The backbone of any community is the stability of its single-family homes,” he said. “Most planners would like to have higher densities, but that would lead to a decline of stable neighborhoods around the Valley.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman, who also is the vice chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said proposed Metro Rail lines connecting Warner Center to downtown will not serve some North Valley residents. But, he added, they will be the start of a larger transportation network.

“It’s coming from downtown because that’s where it started,” he said of the burgeoning transit system. “You could hold off waiting until you get the perfect line, but you might be waiting forever.”

In the meantime, he said, new lines will alleviate traffic problems on the congested Ventura Freeway. “The 101 is busy as hell,” Edelman said.

City Planning Director Con Howe acknowledged that many of the community plans guiding growth in Los Angeles are old, but added that most are being updated. He discounted the report’s claim that city planners have a 1960s view of the Valley.

“Everything you’ve said are things I’ve heard before,” Howe said. “There are things we need to work on, but I think there is a misconception out there. The question is not whether the Valley is changing and how it’s changing, but what is being done about it.

“I can imagine a lot of people in the city may have a certain view of the Valley, but here in the Planning Department, we look at demographic data all the time and we have an office in Van Nuys,” he said.

But Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents the Northeast Valley, said the report appears to address issues he had highlighted for many years as the Valley liaison to then Mayor Tom Bradley. He said he and many residents of his largely Latino district have long suspected they were neglected by city officials.

“They’ve only been confirmed since I’ve been a councilman,” Alarcon said, adding that many city officials are “ill-equipped” to deal with the rapid pace of change in the Valley.

The authors urge the creation of more bus routes in the Northeast Valley to connect people with jobs. They call on planners to create more commercial districts conducive to walking. And they suggest development be concentrated around transit centers.

They ask residents to be more open to traditionally unpopular land uses such as condos to give more people the chance to own a home. And they call for those homes to be close to jobs and leisure activities to keep more cars off the freeways.

BACKGROUND

A new study, “Beyond Suburbia: The Changing Face of the San Fernando Valley,” was researched and written by four students at UCLA’s Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning as part of their master’s degree requirements. Their 350-page work was supervised and directed by UCLA faculty members. It was released to the public because professors thought it might spark debate over the Valley’s future.

A Closer Look

A new UCLA study warns that myths of universal affluence in the San Fernando Valley distort the views of public officials and homeowners as they consider the Valley’s future.

ETHNICITY

* Myth: The Valley is predominantly Anglo.

* Reality: The Valley has grown increasingly diverse, with the non-Latino white population declining from 75% to 57% over the last decade. Non-Latino White: 57% Latino: 32% Asian: 7% African-American: 4% *

INCOME LEVELS

* Myth: The Valley has few low-income neighborhoods.

* Reality: Although most Valley communities match or exceed the citywide average for annual household income, some communities fall below the average. Citywide average: $45,789 Arleta-Pacoima: $39,018 North Hollywood: $39,208 Mission Hills-North Hills-Panorama City: $39,823 Van Nuys-north Sherman Oaks: $41,683 *

RECOMMENDATIONS

Above all, the report recommends that the Valley be viewed as it is, not as it existed 30 years ago. Other, more specific, suggestions:

* Cluster residential and commercial development around future rail stops.

* Improve bus service to low-income areas of northeast Valley.

* Establish a task force to assess Valley housing needs and trends.

* Encourage development or more condominiums and townhomes.

Source: “Beyond Suburbia: The Changing Face of the San Fernando Valley”