Thinking Bigger

Culminating nearly four years of debate, a divided Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to adopt a long-term plan to cope with the projected addition of 820,000 people to the city’s population by 2010.

Although city planners presented the inch-thick document as a blueprint to respond to the city’s expected growth to 4.3 million, dozens of homeowners and several council members criticized the plan, saying it steers growth into already congested neighborhoods.

Mayor Richard Riordan, who had issued a statement urging residents to participate in the General Plan debate, took no position on the document, saying he is waiting until details are finalized.

Wednesday’s 9-4 vote--with council members Jackie Goldberg, Mike Hernandez, Marvin Braude and Joel Wachs voting against the plan--came after more than two hours of discussion, with dozens of residents testifying against it.

After the vote, the homeowners--some of whom had donned wolf masks in an attempt to paint the plan as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”--predicted that it would result in rampant growth of apartment houses in single-family neighborhoods.

The debate centered on whether the plan should accommodate the predicted growth or try to slow it down.

“They just said to hell with the citizens of Los Angeles,” said Gordon Murley, chairman of the San Fernando Valley Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns.

But supporters of the plan said that the growth projected by the Southern California Assn. of Governments cannot be halted. They argue that the plan simply sets down guidelines for where and how the growth will be allowed.

“People are going to come to Los Angeles no matter what we say,” said Councilman Mike Feuer, one of the plan’s supporters. “The question is not should people come to Los Angeles, but if they come, what should we be doing.”

The General Plan framework, which was last revised in 1974, serves as the city’s land-use bible. It sets guidelines--to be followed by bureaucrats who administer zoning and building permits--under which all development takes place.

For the most part, the plan envisions 21st century Los Angeles much as it is. But the document builds upon the so-called “center concepts” at the heart of the 1974 plan. That idea called for the creation of dense neighborhoods of shops, offices and housing, connected by public transit lines.

Planners say homeowners should not fear the framework because it is consistent with community plans--the detailed land-use documents for neighborhoods that are adopted with the input of neighborhood groups.

“If we do not have a [general] plan, it will be business as usual,” said Con Howe, director of the city’s Planning Department.

For the first time in the city’s history, the plan calls for encouragement and retention of local businesses and for development to concentrate around the city’s growing transit system. But the plan also says the city must provide sewers and streets to cope with predicted population increases in the growth areas. “We believe it strikes the right balance,” Howe said.

But Goldberg and Hernandez said the projection of more than 4.3 million Los Angeles residents by 2010 predicts more growth in Hollywood and northeast Los Angeles than anywhere else. They complain that the plan accommodates that increase by allowing more multifamily housing in those areas--crowding schools, adding to traffic and congesting the areas--instead of spreading growth throughout the city.

“The targeted growth areas are not only in our areas but in our areas in a big way,” Goldberg said. “Where is the equity in this kind of plan?”

According to the plan, the communities of Boyle Heights, Silver Lake, Echo Park, South-Central Los Angeles, Hollywood and Wilshire will grow by 320,000 people, or 40% of the city’s entire growth by 2010. About 310,000 additional people are anticipated in the San Fernando Valley, to bring the population there to 1.5 million.

Councilman Hal Bernson, who heads the council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, said that much of the expected growth is due to birth rates in certain areas and that the plan is simply responding to those growth rates.

“You are not going to stop the growth of the city by 1 percent,” he said. “Anybody who says that this will increase the population by one person is not telling you the truth or doesn’t know what he is talking about.”

But several homeowner groups blasted the plan, saying it will destroy single-family neighborhoods by allowing condos and apartment houses to be built where they are now blocked by zoning regulations. They also argued that the plan does not address how to pay for the street and sewer infrastructure needed to accommodate such dense housing patterns.

“All of this is just pie in the sky,” said Lori Dinkin, president of the Valley Village Homeowners Assn. “You are ruining the city.”

Such criticism is not new. The document is the product of about 60 community and neighborhood workshops, during which more than 3,000 residents and business leaders testified, according to planning officials. They say many homeowners groups have signed off on the plan.

Revisions in the plan were prompted by a federal lawsuit over sewage discharge into the Santa Monica Bay that partly blamed unbridled population growth.

Under the framework, planners predict that 75% of new development will take place on just 5% of the city’s land, mostly in urban centers and along major boulevards. The rest of the city would remain largely unchanged. In that 5%, however, planners foresee dense, walkable neighborhoods where shops and apartments are mingled rather than separated as in most suburban communities.

Although some population centers set out in the 1974 plan were built--such as Century City and Warner Center--others did not become urban core areas. Planners say that was because, in part, the plan did not restrict development outside the hubs and because mass transit systems never materialized.

Although the council gave its approval to the plan, several minor amendments that the council asked for must be approved by the Planning Commission and returned to the council for passage.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Key Points

* More intensive and high- rise development in regional centers.

* Greater focal points for midsize community centers, where offices, hotels, theaters and other buildings are generally three to eight stories high.

* Small business districts around transit stops such as those for the Red Lilne and Metrolink.

Also:

* Mix of development along busy streets to encourage walking rather than driving.

* Protection of residential neighborhoods from overbuilding.

Note: Points on map are examples and may not include the targeted areas.