Growth-Curb Vote Delayed for Study of ‘Loophole’

A group of homeowners, contending that there is a loophole in a plan to restrict growth in booming unincorporated areas, succeeded Tuesday in getting a County Board of Supervisors vote on the issue postponed pending further study.

Action was delayed until April 14 after Supervisor Ed Edelman suggested that the concerns of the dozen people who testified be closely examined by the county’s planning staff.

“I’m concerned that if it is a loophole, we need to close it up,” Edelman said.

The plan under consideration is a court-approved settlement that emerged after years of litigation between the county and a coalition of civic and environmentalist groups outraged over the rate of development in unincorporated areas.

The areas covered by the settlement are the Santa Clarita, Antelope and East San Gabriel valleys, and Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains.

Under the settlement, the county generally would have to deny a builder’s project if a sophisticated computer program, called the development monitoring system, determined that the area’s basic services, such as schools, fire stations and water supply, could not handle an influx of newcomers.

Social Benefit Exception

However, developers could sidestep a denial if the supervisors decide that “overriding considerations” of social benefit make a project desirable.

Homeowner groups and attorneys for the lawsuit’s plaintiff call that provision a boon to developers.

“The statement of overriding considerations is nothing but a giant loophole which threatens to undermine the development monitoring system and public confidence,” David Huebner, an attorney with the Center for Law in the Public Interest, told the board.

Jan Heidt, representing the Santa Clarita Homeowners Coalition, called the development monitoring system the “lesser of two evils. It’s better to have it than not.

“However, we frankly feel it doesn’t have enough meat on it,” she said. “If it did, we’d have developers lining up here to speak against it.”

But Norman Murdoch, director of the county’s Department of Regional Planning, recommended that the controversial provision remain. He said its use will not “happen very often, if ever.” He said he likes the provision because it gives the supervisors the flexibility, for instance, to approve construction of a convalescent home that otherwise would be forbidden.

Approval Expected

The board is expected to approve the court settlement, but it remains unanswered if the supervisors will make any of the changes advocated by those worried about unchecked growth. The county’s regional planning commission has recommended that no changes be made to the proposed Superior Court settlement.

At Tuesday’s meeting, only Edelman expressed reservations about the proposed plan. The other two supervisors present, Mike Antonovich and Deane Dana, did not state their opinions. Both are considered pro-development.

Only people advocating changes in the plan testified Tuesday. No developers spoke.

Many who testified also recommended that the county begin a five-year capital improvement plan. They said such a plan would allow the county to dictate where growth should be directed rather than providing roads and other services where the developers decide to build.