Interim San Pedro Growth Limits Win Planners’ Approval

Tackling what has become the hottest issue in San Pedro, the Los Angeles Planning Commission has unanimously adopted a temporary ordinance intended to prevent developers from tearing down single-family homes and replacing them with apartments and condominiums.

In its 4-0 vote, the commission accepted, with some modifications, an interim control ordinance as it was proposed by a citizens advisory committee and Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores.

An alternate version had been suggested by the Planning Department staff, but at a hearing Thursday the staff agreed to include the key provision of the Flores ordinance: that no new multifamily dwellings be built in areas where 50% or more of the housing stock consists of single-family homes and duplexes.

“The community won,” Mario Juravich, an aide to Flores, declared after the commission’s vote.

Here are the key provisions, all of which were included in the Flores ordinance:

The 50% provision, which applies to lots smaller than 6,000 square feet. This rule had been rejected by a hearing examiner for the Planning Department because, he said, it would take too much time to enforce. But at Thursday’s hearing, Chief Hearing Examiner Bob Rogers suggested that his staff, rather than another wing of the department, could enforce the provision. The examiner’s staff will be assisted by the developers themselves, who will be required to submit evidence--including photographs--showing the makeup of the block where they propose to build.

On lots 6,000 square feet or larger, one apartment unit will be allowed for every 2,000 square feet of lot space.

On such lots, apartment buildings will be no larger than four units, a provision that is intended to discourage developers from tying lots together to build massive apartment complexes.

This last provision drew criticism from commission President William Luddy, who called it arbitrary. If the provision were included in a permanent ordinance, he said, he would not support it.

“But,” he said, “I will support this because I think they are trying to solve this problem in the community” by quickly drafting permanent controls.

The interim control ordinance, which will remain in effect for one year while the advisory committee studies permanent changes, must still be approved by the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee and also by the council itself. But Flores’ staff is for the most part satisfied, and passage is expected to be routine.

2 Key Changes

The commission did make two key changes to the ordinance that Flores and the citizens committee proposed: It threw out a controversial provision that would have banned the demolition of hundreds of properties that had been deemed culturally or historically significant by the San Pedro Bay Historical Society, and it also changed the effective date of the ordinance from July 1 to Thursday’s date, Aug. 31.

Although the July 1 date had been widely advertised--prompting a crush of building permit applications in the weeks that preceded it--Luddy and other commissioners said they did not want to depart from commission policy, which calls for setting the date of adoption as the effective date of an ordinance.

The date change is the only provision not likely to survive when the ordinance comes before the City Council, and the commissioners adopted it with sort of a wink and a nod. Commissioner William Christopher, who advocated keeping the July 1 date, said he would vote for the change “knowing the council will do what they will.”

Luddy told a group of developers at Thursday’s hearing: “I have to give you fair warning. If I were a betting man, I would bet on July 1.”

List Scrapped

The commission threw out the historical society’s list of properties in the wake of widespread complaints from residents. At a public hearing before the Planning Commission last week, one resident called the list “historical garbage,” while another called it a product of the “hysterical society.”

In response to those complaints, Juravich suggested at last week’s hearing that the list be sent back to the advisory committee for more study and possible inclusion in the ordinance at a later date.

That was fine with Luddy, who raised other questions about the list, saying he did not think it was proper for the city to adopt as law a provision drafted by a private group.

Thursday’s hearing, held in Van Nuys, was actually a continuation of last week’s hearing, which could not be completed with a vote because the commission lacked a quorum. Despite the long trek, about a dozen San Pedro residents attended. More than 100 turned out last week when the hearing was in San Pedro.

Opinion Split

As was the case last week, opinion seemed split between those who favor controlling growth and those who favor development.

In a turnaround from previous statements, representatives of the San Pedro Downzoning Committee, a slow-growth group, voiced support Tuesday for the alternate ordinance proposed by the Planning Department.

Pam Trutanich, a member of the group, said slow-growth advocates had concluded that the department’s proposal, which would have reduced density by tightening zoning regulations, would have been more effective in controlling development than the Flores ordinance.

On the other end of the spectrum was John Billicich, a builder who told the commission that he lives in a modest area of San Pedro. “Anyone who thinks San Pedro no longer needs growth and cleanup is invited to spend the night at my house,” he declared. Billicich said visitors might hear gunfire or spot transients and prostitutes on the street. “All I know is, these people don’t rent apartments and they don’t buy condominiums.”