Supervisors Agree to Tie Development to Traffic Flow

Two months after the defeat of a countywide slow-growth initiative, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday approved far-reaching growth controls that tie development to traffic improvements.

The plan approved by the supervisors applies to unincorporated areas, which are mostly in south Orange County.

However, both county officials and slow-growth advocates said detailed ordinances must now be formulated to implement the growth controls, a process that could take as long as six months.

The plan, drafted by an 11-member citizens advisory committee, contains elements of the failed June 7 ballot initiative, Measure A, and of the innovative Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan, a $235-million south county road improvement project that is being financed with the help of developers.

The plan approved by the supervisors Wednesday requires that:

- Adequate roads and other public facilities be in place before new development projects are completed.

- Traffic flow meets specific levels of service that still must be determined.

- Developers pay into funds set up for improvements at intersections such as new signals and for financing of police, fire and library facilities.

- “Buffer zones” of open space be established between large new development projects.

- “Rural transition zones” separate new development from natural areas such as Cleveland National Forest.

The citizens committee was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in March, after slow-growth advocates submitted the signatures of more than 96,000 registered voters to qualify the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative for the June 7 ballot.

The committee was asked to draft a “safety-net” plan in case the initiative

failed at the polls or in court.

Panel members included representatives of the building industry, homeowner groups and sponsors of the ballot initiative.

John Erskine, executive director of the Building Industry Assn. and a member of the advisory committee that formulated the plan, said it is expensive to developers but needed.

“It will add to the already exorbitant cost of housing in Orange County, but it is apparently workable and probably necessary to restore the confidence of the Orange County public in the decision-making process.”

The board vote Wednesday drew qualified praise from Tom Rogers, a prominent slow-growth activist, but Rogers said the supervisors must amend previously approved development agreements to conform to the plan before he can fully endorse it.

“I’m pleased that the board adopted the thing,” Rogers said, referring to the growth management plan, “but the question is will it apply to the . . . development agreements.”

“Since the developers were in there as part of the citizens committee, their good faith can be tested by their willingness to go along” with the plan.

The development agreements, most of which were approved this year, protect several major developments from changes in land-use and zoning policies. Developers and county officials believe that the projects involved are thus exempt from the growth controls approved Wednesday.

Developer Fees

Most of the development agreements require developers to pay fees into road improvement funds and to help finance other “public benefits” such as child-care facilities and new sheriff’s substations.

Rogers and other slow-growth activists were so angered by the development agreements, which protect a total of 65,000 housing units, that they began recall drives against Board of Supervisors Chairman Harriett M. Wieder and Supervisor Thomas F. Riley. Those efforts are still under way.

Rogers said Wednesday that he personally would consider dropping recall efforts if the development agreements were made to conform to the growth-control plans approved Wednesday.

“I’m not speaking for the others,” Rogers said, referring to other recall proponents, “But I would consider it.”

Supervisors could not be reached late Wednesday afternoon to respond to Rogers’ complaint about the development agreements.

County officials have indicated in the past that there is little chance the development agreements will be amended because they are legally binding contracts.

Erskine, of the Building Industry Assn., said some of the development agreements contain requirements that are as tough as or tougher than the requirements in the growth management plan.

Court Challenge

Slow-growth activists are challenging the development agreements in court.

A BIA official who did not want to be identified said that some developers “almost hope” their agreements will lose in court because their conditions are tougher than those that would be required under the growth management plan.

“There is no child-care provision in the growth management plan, but the development agreements contain them, for example,” the official said. “The development agreements are nothing the developers are afraid of amending if all that was substituted were conditions of the growth management plan.”

Earlier Wednesday, the supervisors and former board member Bruce Nestande, who chairs the citizens advisory committee, said the greatest challenge before the board is to get Orange County’s 27 cities to adopt growth management plans that are similar to the county’s.

The cities, which make up more than half of the county’s land mass, are not under the county government’s land-use jurisdiction and are not affected by its general policies. Most of the unincorporated areas are in the fast-growing south county.

“It is clear that while we can make progress in addressing infrastructure needs in the south county by virtue of this growth management plan, it is going to take a countywide and even a regionwide effort in order for public facilities to keep pace with development,” Wieder said before the board’s vote.

Nestande echoed Wieder and said the county must also consolidate all of its transportation agencies into one organization that has the power to coordinate traffic control and management issues countywide.

Wieder said those issues will be taken up today at a meeting of county officials and representatives of city governments.