Council OKs Blueprint for Growth, 9-4

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

Although city planners put forward 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 citizens to participate in the General Plan debate, took no position on the document, saying he is waiting until final minor details are decided on later.

The 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 debate, with dozens of residents testifying against it.

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

The debate essentially 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.

But supporters of the plan said that the population growth projected by the Southern California Assn. of Governments cannot be halted. They argue that the plan simply sets 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, acts as the city’s land-use bible. It sets guidelines, to be followed by city 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 it 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.

*

Still, planners say that 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 that 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 that SCAG’s population projections, on which the plan was founded, predict more growth in the Hollywood and northeast Los Angeles areas than anywhere else in the city. They complain that the plan accommodates that increase with more dense multifamily housing in those areas--crowding schools, adding to traffic congestion and causing other quality of life problems--instead of spreading that 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 about 40% of the city’s entire growth by 2010. About 310,000 additional people are anticipated in the San Fernando Valley, to bring its population to 1.5 million.

But Councilman Hal Bernson, who heads the council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, argued 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.

“Anybody who says that this [the plan] 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 that 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, who say that many homeowners groups have already signed off on the plan.

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

Under the framework, planners predict that 75% of development will take place on just 5% of the city’s land, mostly in existing 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.

While some population centers set out in the 1974 plan were built--such as Century City and Warner Center--others did not become the urban core areas planners envisioned, in part because the plan did not restrict development outside those hubs and because the mass transportation systems never materialized.

Planners vow that the new General Plan Framework will work in conjunction with plans for the city’s growing transit system, and will head off undesirable development outside the so-called “targeted growth areas.”

Riordan’s office said he was not taking a position until the plan is finalized in a detailed form. Although the council gave its approval to the overall framework of the General Plan, several minor amendments the council asked for must still be approved by the Planning Commission and returned to the council for passage.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Valley’s Part of the Plan

The General Plan Framework approved by the Los Angeles City Council will set guidelines under which all development will take place. The plan calls for clusters of dense neighborhoods of shops, offices and housing connected by public transit.

* Neighborhood District: Located in residential areas, amenities include small shops, restaurants, markets, child- care facilities, small officies and other services. Encourages walking, mimimizes auto trips.

* Community Center: Draws in surrounding residential neighborhoods with small offices, overnight accommodations, cultural and entertainment facilities and libraries.

* Regional Center: Focal point of regional commerce with larger corporate and professional offices, retail malls, major health facilities and entertainment complexes.

* Mixed- Use Boulevard: Connects neighborhood districts and community and regional centers. Mixture of residential and retail facilities.

Source: City Planning Department

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Blueprints for the Future

The General Plan approved Wednesday will be Los Angeles land-use constitution for the next generation, providing a blueprint for growth. Its most innovative components call for flanking major thoroughfares with apartments and shops and creating dense communities around transit stops.

Key Points

* Encourages more intense and high rise developments in regional centers such as downtown, Century City, Warner Center and Hollywood. The centers continue to attract corporate and professional offices, malls, major health facilities, major entertainment and cultural centers.

* Mid-sized community centers, where offices, hotels, theaters and other buildings are generally three to eight stories high, would be focal points for surrounding residential neighborhoods and include areas such as Los Feliz and Studio City.

* Residential neighborhoods such as Encino or Larchmont Village would be protected from over- building and would contain development including grocery stores, retail outlets, religious facilities and small professional offices.

* Smaller districts would be encouraged around transit stops such as thoses on the Red Line and Metrolink. Each transit area would have it own standards to protect neighborhoods.

* Supports a mix of development along busy streets to encourage walking over driving and would include shops, offices, residences and restaurants. Such areas include Ventura and Pico boulevards, and along Vermont Avenue between Wilshire Boulevard and Manchesther Avenue.

Next Step

* The framework will be used in the coming years by communities as they undertake detailed revisions for their own community plans.