LAWSUIT URGES GROWTH PLAN CHANGES.

Byline: Dominic Berbeo Staff Writer

Los Angeles residents do not have enough say in the city's General Plan - the blueprint for growth in development and infrastructure - a group of homeowners argued in a lawsuit now being considered by a state appellate court panel.

The General Plan, passed by the City Council in 1996, provides the criteria, goals and policies to guide development, land use and infrastructure needed to accommodate the estimated city population growth of 820,000 over the next decade.

``There is no conformity between the aggressive encouragement of commercial development by the city and the lack of public resources to pay for the necessary infrastructure,'' said Lawrence Teeter, a lawyer representing plaintiffs Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations and Coalition Against the Pipeline in the suit against the city.

But Susan Pfann, a deputy city attorney representing Los Angeles in the dispute, said the General Plan is a loose outline of expected growth that can be modified, not a set of rules that applies to specific development.

``This plan does not set land-use limits or dictate how much development would occur,'' she said. ``And city wouldn't allow for growth in development without the necessary infrastructure and services to accommodate it anyway.''

The 1997 suit seeks to have a new General Plan drawn up to target commercial development only for areas where population growth is expected, said Susan Nelson, a spokeswoman for the federation that represents more than 200 homeowners' associations in the Los Angeles area.

``The city is promoting fast growth and they still don't have a solid plan to mitigate for traffic congestion or increased water consumption,'' she said.

Both sides argued for more than 30 minutes before a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Tuesday. The panel, which took the case under consideration, will likely issue an opinion within 90 days.

In 1998, Superior Court judge David Yaffe ruled in plaintiffs' favor that the traffic mitigation plan included in the General Plan was not properly circulated, and the public comment process was insufficient. The city appealed that decision to the appellate court.