COUNCIL SPLIT ON GROWTH DECISION.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

Some Los Angeles City Council members welcomed on Friday a judge's ruling that the city reopen debate on its long-range growth plan, but others insisted nothing is likely to change despite a lack of money to deal with problems caused by allowing a huge population increase.

``I think the whole infrastructure question needs more discussion in this city, period, because infrastructure is what we have badly neglected,'' said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg. ``We're going to have to come to grips with it at some point.''

Ruling on a lawsuit filed by homeowners groups, Superior Court Judge David Yaffe decided Thursday that the city failed to properly provide public notice and public circulation of a transportation management plan before the council voted in 1996 to adopt a General Plan framework as a blueprint for future land use and development.

The General Plan and an accompanying environmental impact report provided guidelines for allowing the city's population to grow by 25 percent, to 4.3 million, by 2010. The transportation plan said it would require $25 billion - money that was not available - to accommodate the growth.

Goldberg, one of four council members who opposed the General Plan two years ago, said the city won't have enough money to provide adequate freeways, streets and public transit for hundreds of thousands of new residents to get to jobs.

``Because this has never been a city where people lived close to work, having more jobs will not mean much if you can't get people to them,'' she said.

Councilman Mike Hernandez, who also voted against the General Plan, said he also is worried that the city cannot afford to provide the transportation system to handle massive growth.

``We don't have the resources,'' Hernandez said. ``The reality is we have to deal with those issues.''

Councilwoman Laura Chick said she is aware of the potential transportation problems and wants to hear more public comments about the transportation management plan.

``If the plan needs fine-tuning and changing, I'm open to that,'' she said.

Noting that the vote was 9-4 in 1996 to adopt the General Plan, Goldberg said she doubts whether the additional debate will cause the council to change the growth plan.

``I think there will be open debate, but I don't think that there's any desire to change it much,'' she said. ``I know when I'm on the losing side.''

Councilmen Hal Bernson and Richard Alatorre said they are satisfied that the General Plan addresses transportation issues to the extent the city can anticipate growth.

``Nobody has any guarantees that we'll have the money,'' Bernson said, adding that the city still must develop guidelines and measures to ease the effects of growth or it will occur uncontrolled.

Alatorre and Bernson said they believe the city will find enough funds for transportation programs to protect economic prosperity amid population growth.

``It's something we can overcome,'' said Alatorre, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member who has fought plans to kill a subway line to the Eastside, where 20 percent of the city's population growth is forecast.

Optimistic on funds

Alatorre said he feels confident that the federal and state governments will continue funding rail, bus and freeway projects in Los Angeles.

``We're competitive,'' he said. ``If we have a good plan, we'll be able to get money to do it.''

In their lawsuit, homeowners groups challenged the way the plan was approved.

In a written ``minute order'' released Friday, the judge said the city violated state law by not giving the public a proper chance to review and comment on the Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program.

``The TIMP contains significant new information about the project, particularly about the fiscal impact of implementing it as a mitigation program and an analysis that indicates that the city's portion of said costs will be well beyond what the city can afford to pay,'' Yaffe wrote.

Council members said that when they approved the plan they were aware of the potential problems.

However, the judge voiced skepticism about how seriously the council considered the dire warnings.

``I read the council's comments'' in a transcript, Yaffe said during a court hearing Thursday. ``One guy got up and said the city can't afford this because it's going to cost $5 billion and the city doesn't have it, and the council said thank you very much and went on to the next comment.''

Yaffe ordered the city to circulate the transportation plan and consider the public's comments. A more detailed written order is due in 10 days and may address whether the plan will be temporarily set aside.

Unrealistic plan

Mike Sinkov, an attorney and planning activist who worked on the lawsuit, said the transportation mitigation plan is unrealistic because of the cost.

``That's why this order of a renewed public debate is so important and is going to be the best thing for the city,'' Sinkov said. ``The city had short-circuited the public participation process. People that live in this city should have a meaningful conversation about what it is the city is proposing and should decide whether it is appropriate.''

Council members and city planners, who note that the General Plan provides for the city to monitor growth, say development can be curtailed if needed.

City Planning Director Con Howe defended the General Plan as a reasonable attempt to anticipate issues to be raised by future growth.

``One has a lot harder time determining the availability of funds 15 to 20 years from now, so one has to make judgments,'' Howe said, adding that the council was well aware of the funding problem when it voted.

``That's a very interesting admission for a public official to make,'' said homeowners attorney Lawrence Teeter. ``They are saying they know there is (no) money for this, but they are allowing the growth anyway.''