Judge OKs Computerized County Planning Program

A Superior Court judge ended a 14-year civil battle over growth controls for the county’s remaining open space Tuesday by approving a computerized method of evaluating development proposals.

Judge Norman L. Epstein approved changes to the county’s 1980 General Plan that were negotiated by the county and a coalition of environmentalists and homeowners, calling the settlement “an exciting, innovative solution that seems to me is very much in the public’s interest.”

The modifications in the General Plan, a blueprint for development in the county through the year 2000, are designed to promote orderly growth in the booming unincorporated urban fringes of the county--the Santa Clarita, Antelope and east San Gabriel valleys, the Las Virgenes area and Malibu.

The keystone of the settlement is a sophisticated computer system, called the development monitoring system, or DMS. It will determine if a proposed construction project could be absorbed by a community without overburdening roads, water supplies, schools and libraries.

If the services are not adequate, the Board of Supervisors would have to reject a development unless the builder agrees to pay for expanding them.

The plan contains a potential loophole that has drawn criticism from county Supervisor Ed Edelman as well as homeowners’ and environmental groups. It allows the supervisors to approve an otherwise unacceptable construction project if they determine that there are “overriding considerations” outweighing adverse impact.

County officials have resisted efforts to eliminate or define the term “overriding considerations.” Officials have said that the Board of Supervisors would use the provision only to approve such worthwhile projects as nursing homes or low-cost or senior-citizen housing.

Edelman unsuccessfully tried to change the controversial provision before the proposed settlement was endorsed last week by the supervisors and sent to Epstein.

When Epstein approved the settlement Tuesday, Ray Ristic, an official with the county’s Department of Regional Planning, jabbed his fist in the air and grinned broadly.

“We won the ballgame,” Ristic said. “The department is very pleased we were able to substantiate the fact that our General Plan was really an adequate document.”

Norman Murdoch, director of the county’s planning department, has praised the plan as “as very major breakthrough in California planning practices.”

The environmentalists have said they hope that the revised General Plan will reduce the subjectivity in planning decisions made by the pro-development majority on the Board of Supervisors. They expressed skepticism, however, about the county’s sincerity in following the spirit of new rules.

No Panacea

“I’m not that confident that the county will implement the DMS, particularly with the ‘overriding consideration’ loophole,” said Sherman W. Griselle, a university professor and chairman of the group that filed the initial lawsuit. “We haven’t had sound planning from the county in the past. I’m not sure the DMS will be the panacea in the future.”

Carlyle W. Hall Jr., an attorney with the Center for Law in the Public Interest, which represented the plaintiffs, also was skeptical. He asked the judge to have a court-appointed referee watch over the county’s shoulder for one year, but Epstein rejected the request.

Nonetheless, Hall was upbeat after the court hearing. “We all feel it’s a good workable product, vastly superior to what we started with years ago.”

Hall was referring to the 1973 General Plan, which prompted the litigation against the county, brought by the Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the Public Interest. That plan permitted widespread development in areas with inadequate services and in areas that were ecologically sensitive or earthquake- or landslide-prone, he said.

Programming Completed

The computer system the county will use has been programmed with information provided by various public and private sources on the unincorporated areas’ network of sewers, water supplies, schools, libraries and roads. Shortly after a developer notifies the county that he wants to build in one of the targeted areas, the computer will be consulted.

The computer will determine if enough services are available to support an increased population and will analyze the cost of providing more services.

Ristic said development opponents should not worry about the local government’s commitment to the monitoring system.

“I would have to be optimistic that the county will not abuse the statement of ‘overriding consideration,’ ” he said.