Council approves Normandy Avenue housing project despite opposition over open space and pipeline concerns

The Los Angeles City Council approved a housing development on a former railroad right-of-way on June 5, 2001, voting 11–0 to uphold the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee report and move the project forward.

The project drew a 10-minute public hearing at the request of the chair. Opponents included neighborhood residents and community activists who urged the council to keep the corridor as open space or a greenbelt and raised concerns about soil contamination at a nearby Superfund site. Several speakers also warned about crime and graffiti along the abandoned corridor and questioned whether the plan fit the neighborhood’s pattern of mostly lots larger than 5,000 square feet.

Resident Dale Friedley, who said he has lived in the area his entire life, told the council the community wanted a greenbelt and cited graffiti and safety concerns along the abandoned rail corridor. “I would appreciate it if you would not approve this development,” Friedley said, urging preservation of open space.

Cheryl Sherman, another nearby resident, said 85% of properties facing the proposed project are larger than 5,000 square feet and that the developer sought variances to allow 4,500-square-foot lots and two-story houses that neighbors said do not conform to the surrounding neighborhood. Sherman also asked whether the site had been tested for potential contaminants tied to adjacent rail uses.

Environmental and safety concerns were a central theme for Frank O’Brien, who told the council a high-pressure petroleum pipeline runs under the right-of-way. O’Brien said the city’s code prevents structures on top of such pipelines and that the project’s original mitigated negative declaration (MND) assumed the pipeline would be left in place; the new project element to remove or relocate the pipeline, he argued, had not been studied as part of the original environmental analysis.

Representatives for the developer and neighborhood supporters said the project will remove long-standing blight and provide homeownership opportunities. Brian Chin, representing Garfield Financial Corporation, told the council the applicant would abandon and relocate the pipeline, and said, “the applicant has agreed to remove it at a cost of $1,500,000 of their own money.” Chin also said the applicant agreed to remove seven billboards on the site and to dedicate a 17,000-square-foot parcel to the Department of Recreation and Parks.

Raffi Manasian and other neighborhood supporters said the project would revitalize area property values and that the proposed density (63 units) was lower than the zoning allowed (the developer cited an upper by-right capacity of about 103 units).

PLUM committee members who reviewed the case recommended approval, and Councilman Hernandez moved the unanimous PLUM report. Council members who spoke during the debate said the project replaced a chronically blighted corridor and that the developer had negotiated community benefits and infrastructure improvements, including more than $2 million in public improvements (sidewalks, street and gutter work) cited by a project supporter.

The council voted to approve the PLUM report and move the project "forthwith." The formal record shows an 11–0 roll call in favor of the item.

Votes at a glance: Item 7 (housing development on abandoned railroad right-of-way) — Approved, 11–0. Key details recorded in the hearing: proposed 63 residential units (developer stated 103 units could be built by right but proposal is 63), applicant agreed to pay approximately $1.5 million to abandon/relocate a pipeline, remove seven on-site billboards, and dedicate about 17,000 square feet to the Department of Recreation and Parks; developers also committed to public improvements estimated at more than $2 million.

Ending: Council members described the vote as a way to convert a long-neglected corridor into residential ownership and public improvements, while opponents said environmental testing and open-space preservation questions remain unresolved in the record.