YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Strict Plan for Slow Growth Is Considered by Pasadena

October 09, 1988|ASHLEY DUNN | Times Staff Writer

PASADENA — With a citizens' campaign to put a slow-growth measure on the March ballot building momentum, the Board of Directors has launched its own slow-growth plan, which will ban most office construction for up to two years.

The board's proposal, which was developed after four months of study, will allow construction of office buildings only in redevelopment areas, and even that will be limited to no more than a total of 150,000 square feet a year.

Board Review Required

The board also approved tightening controls on demolishing affordable housing, requiring board review of all major retail and commercial projects, and placing annual limits on the construction of apartments and condominiums.

The plan is similar to the citizens' initiative sponsored by Pasadena Residents in Defense of their Environment. PRIDE leaders said that although they support parts of the board's plan, they will continue with their own initiative.

The board's plan must still be fleshed out by the city staff and drafted into an ordinance, which will take at least three more months to finish.

Unless the PRIDE initiative passes in March, the ordinance will stay in place for up to two years while the city works on a permanent growth-control plan, which will include placing annual caps on all types of development. If the initiative is passed, it would overrule the ordinance.

Grapple With Construction

The interim plan approved last week marks the first comprehensive effort by the board to grapple with the unprecedented level of construction in the city, particularly in the last two years.

Mayor William Thomson, who led the effort, said the plan represents a consensus of the board and the community.

Thomson sponsored a series of meetings during the summer to hear the concerns of the public. And to reach a consensus of the board, meetings were held for two days last week with Thomson declaring that no plan would be adopted unless all board members agreed.

Although there were few ecstatic cheers for the plan, neither was there open hostility.

Chamber of Commerce President Don Pollard said he was concerned about the ban on office construction, but generally supported the plan because it left City Hall in charge of deciding growth-control policies.

In a surprising twist, Director Rick Cole, one of the most outspoken slow-growth advocates on the board, argued against the ban, saying it was too extreme. Cole urged the board to adopt PRIDE's initiative.

But he later agreed to the proposal, saying: "I have no real problems. What they came up with is essentially downtown's worst fears about what Rick Cole would have done if he were in control of the board."

Surprised at Restrictions

Michael Salazar, co-chairman of PRIDE, which is sponsoring the latest citizens' slow-growth initiative, also was surprised at the restrictions of the board's plan.

"It leaves me speechless," he said. "It's amazing they would support a ban. It verges on the drastic."

But Salazar said even though the plan went further than PRIDE's initiative, it was hard to complain since it incorporated many of the same ideas.

"It's essentially our initiative," he said. "I think they're trying some one-upmanship."

PRIDE's proposal, the second slow-growth initiative to appear in the city in the last year, establishes annual limits on construction. Proposition G, which was sponsored by a group of residents in northeast Pasadena, was defeated in the June election by a vote of 20,441 to 8,971.

Under PRIDE's proposal, no more than 250 housing units and 250,000 square feet of non-residential development could be built each year. Single-family homes and projects smaller than 25,000 square feet would be exempted.

Prohibit Demolition

The proposal would require that all projects larger than 25,000 square feet win support from two-thirds of the 7-member Board of Directors and would prohibit the demolition of affordable housing, unless it was replaced elsewhere in the city.

The initiative is written in broad terms and allows the city to flesh out the details. For example, the city could institute a ban on office construction, such as the board did last week, to stay within the annual building limits.

PRIDE is now circulating petitions to put the initiative on the ballot. The group needs about 6,300 valid signatures by the end of October to qualify the measure.

The board's plan is largely consistent with PRIDE's initiative, although it does not specify a maximum number of residential units that can be built each year, nor does it require a two-thirds majority of the board to approve major projects.

Who Will Control Growth

Cole said the real difference is who will control the city's growth policy--the city or the voters.

Thomson has said that planning issues should not be decided in election campaigns, where technical issues are often boiled down to simplistic slogans.

He also said an initiative would restrict the city's ability to deal with constantly changing land-use issues.

Los Angeles Times Articles