Judge Refuses to Overturn Santa Clarita Growth Plan

A Los Angeles magistrate has rejected a developer’s request to overturn the city of Santa Clarita’s entire blueprint for future growth but ruled that the plan fails to adequately list the amount of land suitable for residential development, including lower-cost housing.

The significance of the two-page ruling by Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Emilie H. Elias was unclear late Wednesday, when it was obtained by the city and Dale Poe Development Corp., the company that filed the lawsuit and is building the huge Stevenson Ranch housing tract west of the city.

Although Elias did not overturn the city’s blueprint for future growth, known as the General Plan, it was unclear whether her ruling requires the city to rewrite the deficient housing element, and if so, whether the plan is valid in the interim.

Santa Clarita spokeswoman Gail Foy said the city attorney’s office needed time to review the ruling before commenting.

Jeff Stevenson, vice president of Poe, was also unable to interpret its effect. “I know it means they did not throw our whole suit out,” Stevenson said.

Poe sued the city, claiming that the General Plan should be overturned because it was adopted June 25 in violation of several technical requirements.

The developer argued that the General Plan was not available to the public within two days of its adoption, as required under state law. The company also argued that the city approved a portion of the plan concerning noise without making noise-level maps available to the public, and failed to prepare an adequate housing inventory.

Elias stated in the brief ruling Tuesday that she did not find substantial evidence to invalidate the three-inch-thick document, which took the city more than two years to prepare. She also rejected Poe’s request that the city pay the company’s attorney’s fees.

Elias said the city had substantially complied with the publication requirement because although the plan was not printed until about three months after its adoption, copies of draft versions were available to the public at City Hall.

She also said that although the city failed to complete the noise maps before adopting the plan, the document adequately described the location of the noisy areas. In February, the city admitted it made a mistake and amended the plan to include the proper maps, Elias said.

But the magistrate did find fault with the housing element, one of 13 sections in the plan.

The city failed to list or describe the amount of property in the city available for residential development, according to the ruling. “The plan speaks of ‘minimal flat vacant land’ within the city. This is a very vague term. Does it mean that there is no land for housing within the city limits?” the ruling states.

Elias also said the plan fails to comply with state laws requiring cities to provide lower-cost housing. “The only statement in the plan is that low-income housing will be provided outside of the city limits,” the ruling states. During a March 4 hearing, City Atty. Carl Newton told the magistrate that the city hoped to annex much of the land outside its boundaries, including property where lower-cost housing would be built.