County Panel OKs Shift of 1,011 Acres to City of L.A.

The City of Los Angeles’ proposed annexation of 1,011 acres in the Santa Susana Pass near Chatsworth was unanimously approved Wednesday by the Local Agency Formation Commission, despite objections by some property owners in the area.

The commission’s action, which came after hours of public testimony and debate from an audience said to be evenly split between supporters and opponents, is an important move toward transferring land-use decisions for the area from the County of Los Angeles to the city.

City Councilman Hal Bernson, whose district includes Chatsworth, has said he is pushing the proposed annexation to protect the area from being inundated by high-density development. County approval of a large condominium project in the mountains triggered his interest in the annexation, Bernson said.

The county Board of Supervisors is generally considered by the building industry and others to be more receptive to higher-density development than the city.

Agency Oversees Boundaries

The commission, a county agency that oversees local government boundaries, was required to take a vote before the Los Angeles City Council proceeds with plans for annexing the land, which is south of the Simi Valley Freeway and west of Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Most of the property is privately owned, although state parkland occupies about 400 acres, said Ruth Benell, LAFCO’s executive director.

“What swayed me is that the area is right next to the city and it’s kind of out in the wilderness as far as the county political structure is concerned,” said Tom Jackson, a Huntington Park councilman who is the League of California Cities’ representative on the commission.

“On little strips of land like this, the city can provide better service than the county.”

The annexation must be approved by City Council and Mayor Tom Bradley. However, opponents can force a citywide vote on the issue if 25% to 49% of the landowners in the area file written protests, Benell said. If more than 49% of the landowners protest, the annexation is rejected.

Proponents of the annexation included many residents of a mobile home park called Indian Hills Trailer Park, who testified that they wanted the services provided by the City of Los Angeles and welcomed the prospects of falling under the city’s rent-control laws.

Residents at the mobile home park wanted assurances, however, that the city would extend for 20 years a conditional-use permit to allow the trailer park to continue operating. The permit expires in 1991.

‘Wanted Guarantees’

“They wanted guarantees,” Jackson said. “They were asking for something that’s not even available to them from the county.”

As many opponents as backers were on hand, said Jackson. Some of them were property owners who said they feared that their land might be rezoned under city administration, jeopardizing development plans.

Some are not satisfied that the city is going far enough with the annexation. Three days before he resigned as the city’s planning chief in 1986, Calvin S. Hamilton called for the city to annex about 15,000 unincorporated acres--including the 1,011 acres approved by the commission Wednesday--north of the Simi Valley Freeway to the top of Oat Mountain and the adjoining ridge, and west from Chatsworth to the Ventura County line.

Outside of some environmentalists and critics of county land-use policies, the proposal to annex the larger area north of the Simi Valley Freeway has not been given serious consideration and does not have Bernson’s support, the councilman said earlier.