City, County Officials Differ on Effect of Land-Use Rule

In the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision revamping the power of government officials to control land-use, Los Angeles city and county officials differed Wednesday on the effect the ruling will have on local planning and on a burgeoning slow-growth movement.

For the most part, they predicted little change in the future of local land-use decisions.

“I don’t think it’s going to have any effect here at all,” said Gary Netzer, head of the city attorney’s land-use division.

A few blocks away at the county Hall of Administration, Supervisor Deane Dana said he thought that the decision--stemming from a lawsuit against Los Angeles County--helps the case of residents of his district who are battling the California Coastal Commission over land-use issues. But he argued that the county’s own planning process could withstand legal challenges even after the Supreme Court ruling.

“This case will not have an immediate impact on county zoning ordinances or procedures,” added Charles Moore, principal deputy county counsel. He said the court’s ruling merely allows a property owner to sue for damages if a government “has unreasonably restricted the use of property.” Moore said the Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of the lawsuit brought against Los Angeles County.

‘Have an Impact’

But another view came from Dan Garcia, president of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, who contended that the decision would “clearly have an impact,” especially when the city seeks to impose interim controls on land-use, such as establishing a construction moratorium.

“All of those regulations may be susceptible to challenge,” Garcia said. “I think it’s going to force us to be more careful to the extent in which we engage in overregulation.”

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that property owners may sue for compensation if zoning boards or other agencies impose restrictions that bar them from developing their land. By a 6-3 vote, the court overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had largely protected local governments from suits for compensation by unhappy land owners and developers.

The decision upheld the power of state and local governments to impose zoning restrictions and place heavy burdens of proof on property owners who challenge such curbs. But the court also made it clear that if government officials go too far they may find themselves compelled to pay compensation to property owners.

The actual court case began after a 1978 flash flood washed away several buildings on a camp owned by the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale. When county supervisors declared the area a flood zone and banned the church from rebuilding there, the church sued, alleging that its property effectively had been taken from it.

Garcia said Wednesday that the ruling could jeopardize government regulations, including those mandating open-space development or precluding property owners from building on lots deemed by the city to be substandard. But Netzer, a senior assistant city attorney, said he is confident that such city ordinances “would pass constitutional muster.”

Developers and property owners had hailed the decision and had predicted that it would retard a slow-growth movement that has gained impetus--especially in the City of Los Angeles.

But Councilmen Marvin Braude and Zev Yaroslavsky, the authors of Proposition U--an initiative that halves the allowable size of new developments adjacent to residential neighborhoods--insisted that the decision does not hinder the slow-growth cause.

“It is very, very clear that the U.S. Supreme Court decision does not affect any of the ordinances that we have approved in this city. It does not affect Proposition U,” Yaroslavsky said. “It does not affect the direction in which the slow-growth movement is going in this city.”

Press Their Point

To press the point, both Braude and Yaroslavsky appeared at a City Hall news conference to unveil their long-anticipated follow-up to Proposition U. Their three-pronged effort to further restrict large-scale development in the city calls for an environmental review of all major commercial and residential projects that are proposed in the city.

Under the plan, conditional-use permits would be required for projects that are at least 40,000 square feet, as well as residential properties that involve 25 units or more. It also would apply to projects generating 500 or more additional daily automobile trips than what had been previously generated at the same site.

About 300 projects would be affected by the proposal, Braude said, and he warned that if the council does not act on the measure by the end of summer, he and Yaroslavsky will launch another initiative drive to qualify a measure enacting those changes for the June, 1988, ballot.