Court Plan Seeks to Limit Growth in 4 County Areas

A court-appointed referee has recommended that Los Angeles County adopt a sweeping system of controls designed to take the politics out of development decisions and to prevent premature urbanization of the canyons, hillsides and deserts in four outlying areas.

If approved Tuesday as expected by Superior Court Judge Norman C. Epstein, and then passed by the Board of Supervisors, an amendment to the county General Plan would impose building caps in Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa Clarita Valley, the Antelope Valley and the East San Gabriel Valley.

Epstein ordered the county a year ago to prepare a program “to avoid the unnecessary conversion of open space land to urban uses” in response to a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the Public Interest, an alliance of environmental and civic groups. The coalition claimed the General Plan adopted in 1980 and expiring in 2000 does not meet state standards without guarantees of orderly growth.

In June, unimpressed by an interim program adopted by the supervisors, Epstein chose James A. Kushner, a Southwestern University law professor, to work with the county and the coalition to create a new proposal.

Leaders of the coalition and county planners said they generally agree with the result.

“Getting all this in print in public documents that are publicly available puts a real limit on (politicians’) discretion and their ability to change their decisions depending on who the applicant is,” said Carlyle W. Hall, attorney for the coalition.

Environmentalists have complained that the vagueness of the present General Plan allows officials the latitude to let pro-growth sentiments influence individual project decisions.

The court referee’s proposal is “not the panacea for sound planning in Los Angeles County,” said Sherman Griselle, an urban planning professor who heads the alliance. “I think the 1980 plan has a lot of sprawl built into it. But we think this will make the growth happen in a more logical way, slowing it down, and perhaps show where some development is simply not possible.”

Concern for Services

In addition to the building limits, the amendment would link approval of new construction in unincorporated areas to availability of roads, sewers, water and other services. The county would keep a running tally of the capacity in each area. The Regional Planning Commission and the supervisors would be required in most instances to deny project proposals that would overburden facilities, even if the caps have not been reached.

To minimize development sprawl, no projects would be allowed more than one mile away from existing communities or more than five miles away from employment centers.

Griselle said the system should limit increases in traffic congestion, double sessions in schools and water shortages.

County Planning Director Norman Murdoch said he would recommend the system to the supervisors. He said he does not expect substantial opposition from the board. Individual supervisors had not yet completed their studies of the referee’s report to the judge, aides said.

Planner’s Viewpoint

Planner Ray Ristic added: “I personally feel that what we have done to the 1980 plan is really a clarification of what we intended originally. I think we’ve gone far beyond what is required by state law.”

But Griselle said the court order was needed because the county “has always been development-minded, whether the board was liberal or conservative.” When it comes to building restrictions, he said, “the county has a habit of promising many things, but they (supervisors) never fulfill those promises, they never follow through.”

Griselle added that he is wary of an exception in the proposed program that would allow the county to approve projects that exceed capacity when supervisors declare that “overriding considerations” make that construction necessary.

“That’s a huge loophole,” he said.

In his report to the judge, Kushner agreed with the coalition’s concern that the provision “could be used as a license to break the plan.”

Court’s Jurisdiction

Consequently, Kushner suggested that the court retain jurisdiction over the plan for one year after adoption by the supervisors--one recommendation that does not please county planners.

The planners have agreed that residential building caps should be placed in each of the four areas under heavy development pressures.

The plan amendment would limit the Malibu area, which stretches from the shoreline north to the Ventura Freeway, to 30,700 dwellings--enough for a population of 79,000--by the year 2000. The current population is about 63,000, Ristic said.

The Santa Clarita Valley, which is the Castaic area, would be allowed 57,900 houses, condominiums and apartments. The population, which is now 106,000, would expand to 165,000.

In Antelope Valley, near Palmdale, the cap would be placed at 77,900 dwellings. Population would increase from 134,000 to 218,000.

And the East San Gabriel Valley, which includes Diamond Bar and Rowland Heights, would be limited to 254,400 residences. County planners project that the population there will actually decrease from 767,000 to 723,000.

Commercial Acreage

Kushner also suggested caps on commercial and industrial building in areas where the county forecasts demand for less acreage than it has allocated for such purposes.

In the Antelope Valley, for example, 2,200 acres are set aside for commercial use, but county planners expect a demand for only 600 acres by the year 2000. And 6,000 acres are designated for industrial use, but county planners project a demand of only 1,400 acres.

In Malibu, the county plan shows 600 acres that could be developed with major commercial facilities. Of that, county planners expect about 300 acres to be used for shopping centers, hotels and offices, and another 250 acres to be used for recreational enterprises--leaving an extra 50 acres.

Another 300 acres is designated for industrial use, while demand is projected at 100 acres.

County planners say the extra acreage was included to allow flexibility for developers deciding where to locate their projects. They say commercial and industrial caps would be too complicated.

Funds From Developers

Under the proposal, if building limits have not been reached but roads, schools and utilities are at capacity, developers may be able to win project approval by contributing money for needed expansions.

For example, Kushner wrote, a Malibu developer whose project would add to congestion on Pacific Coast Highway might be asked to pay for a traffic signal. Or an assessment district could be established to finance road planning for the area. Or if the standard for traffic would be only slightly exceeded by the project, “approval could be made under the overriding concerns provision,” the report says.

But the coast highway is already crowded and its location, with the beach on the south and landslide-prone bluffs to the north, makes significant widening nearly impossible. “Where the project presents a substantial increase beyond the acceptable standard without offsetting mitigation,” Kushner wrote, “the project would be denied.”

In the Santa Clarita Valley, water capacity has been a major concern. If a developer there wants to build a project that would use more water than is available, as shown by the county’s running tally, there would be little he could do to expand the supply. “The first option would be to scale back the project to be within capacity,” Kushner wrote. Otherwise, the project would be denied.

If so many projects are denied that population growth falls 20% below county predictions for two years in a row, the county would be required to re-evaluate the building limits, Kushner wrote.