PROVIDENCE — The controversial Comprehensive Plan was approved by the City Council last night, over the jeers of neighborhood groups and disapproving glares from the owners of waterfront industrial businesses.

The plan has been opposed by neighborhood groups who say that the city is rushing the approval process, and want the council to delay implementation until after a series of neighborhood design “charettes” is finished in 2009.

Waterfront businesses along Allens Avenue have come out against the plan, which recommends changing the zoning of the section of Allens Avenue north of Thurbers Avenue from industrial to mixed-use. That would allow residential and commercial uses to enter the heavy industrial zone, and allow developer Patrick T. Conley to move forward on his large Providence Piers project, a $300-million condominium and hotel development.

The plan was passed 10 to 3, with several council members saying that they did not see the need to pass the plan now, and urging their colleagues to wait until the charettes are completed.

“Now is not the time to turn our backs on our neighborhood. Let our citizens be heard,” said Councilman Kevin Jackson, who was joined by Josephine DiRuzzo and John J. Lombardi in opposition.

But supporters argued that there has been an extensive vetting process for the plan, and that recent changes were made to ensure that no substantive zoning changes are made in the neighborhoods until after the charettes are concluded.

“I think we’ve had a lot of great input from various organizations,” said Council Majority Leader Terrence M. Hassett. “We’re going to respect our neighborhoods. I think it’s a good first step. I feel comfortable.”

City Planners state that the new plan will lay the groundwork for creating a Providence with walkable paths and green spaces along the rivers and waterfront. It designates “jobs-only” districts as a way to keep businesses in the city as traditional spaces are lost to housing.

The plan also labels likely areas for growth, and identifies “growth corridors” like Broad Street, Westminster Street and North Main Street, where development will be encouraged. The city’s existing Comprehensive Plan was cobbled together in 1994, and both supporters and opponents agree that it is out of date and needs replacement.

Members of several neighborhood organizations were in the audience, but the loudest protests were from the Olneyville Neighborhood Association, whose members came with signs reading “mixed income = disenfranchisement,” “Clear and transparent gentrification,” and one lampooning the charettes, reading “just call them charades.”

On several occasions, Council President Peter S. Mancini had to slam his gavel to quiet them, as they booed supportive statements by council members.

Less vocal, but equally staunch in their opposition were the members of the waterfront businesses, who released statements signaling their unhappiness at the passage of the plan.

They fear that the introduction of residential development will mean that the industrial businesses will be slowly forced out, and that those jobs will be lost to Providence permanently.

“We feel that this change is extremely shortsighted, as it will open the door to incompatible mixed-use residential condominiums that will spell the end of this economically vital resource for Providence, Rhode Island, and the entire region,” the members of the Working Waterfront Alliance wrote in a statement.

Ellis S. Waldman, president of Walco Electric Co., said that the vision of the waterfront condominiums is flashy — but it’s not what Providence needs now.

“It sounds colorful. It sounds glamorous. But after some reflection, one sees that it is actually nothing more than an overworked, monotonous variation of what has become a tedious theme in Providence. Do we really need more condominiums in the city?” he wrote, making the case that the city does need the industrial jobs that the businesses provide.

Joel Cohen, vice president of Promet Marine Services, an Allens Avenue shipyard, said that the fight is not over, though he would not specify how he and his allies plan to oppose the plan next.

He said he would have to place his faith in the words of several council members, who implored the opposition to trust them that adopting the plan now would not mean immediate change, or that their voices will no longer be heard.

“They asked us to be trusting. At this point, we’ll go on trust, and continue to get our message across,” he said.

The plan will require a second passage, which is expected next week.

If it receives second passage, it would be transmitted to the state for approval.

dbarbari@projo.com