Reform of Land-Use Approval Process Urged

Lawmakers and environmentalists called Monday for land-use and campaign reforms in response to Times stories detailing how the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved much more development in the western Santa Monica Mountains than was originally called for in the area’s General Plan.

Nearly 40% of the subdivision plans filed for the area since 1981 were bigger than the original General Plan allowed. In one case, 204 homes were approved for a property designated for 37 homes.

Many projects were approved by the board about the same time that campaign contributions were made to county supervisors, including Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represented the area at the time. After redistricting in 1991, much of the area is now represented by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

“At a minimum it looks very sleazy,” said attorney Carlyle Hall, co-founder and board member of the Center for Law in the Public Interest in Los Angeles.

Hall, who has sued the county in the past over planning issues, called for new campaign funding restrictions, similar to those in Orange County, where developers cannot contribute to officials while their projects are pending.

“It seems to have worked in Orange County,” Hall said. “Orange County has not ground to a halt because of it.”

State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), who represents the area of the Santa Monica Mountains where development occurred, said he is angry about the way excess development has been allowed. He may introduce legislation to limit campaign contributions from developers to county supervisors, similar to a bill he supported that now applies to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, he said.

“You’ve got to send a clear message that the Santa Monica Mountains are not for sale,” Hayden said.

Hall said the county has been tougher on mountain development since Yaroslavsky began representing many of the targeted areas in 1991.

In a letter responding to The Times’ stories, Antonovich said he has supported agreements reached between homeowner groups and developers on the scope of projects.

“However, the bottom line here is that the process only saw the addition of 814 new homes to the area over what was contemplated by the Santa Monica Mountains Area Plan, a less than 1% increase.”

The Times’ analysis found that the county approved 2,200 homes on land designated for 1,000.

Hayden said he also may sponsor legislation to prevent developers from claiming major public streets as part of their projects and then increasing the number of homes that can be built because the acreage is greater.

James Hartl, director of planning for the county, vowed to correct the situation and issued a directive spelling out what is allowable.

Hartl said Monday he has asked his staff to review the issues raised in The Times’ stories “to determine whether there is anything else we need to do as far as corrective action.”

Hayden said state legislation may be needed to plug a loophole that has allowed county planners to consider streets in determining the acreage of projects.

“That is a straight-out abuse that should be banned, and it may be possible legislatively to ban it,” Hayden said.

Hall also supports such a ban, calling the past practice “inappropriate.”

The attorney said it appears the county General Plan for the area exists only on paper and is not being properly enforced.

“In this particular case, they felt free to amend the General Plan any time they wanted,” Hall said, hoping that the plan currently being developed will include provisions making it more difficult to change.

*

Joseph Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said it is clear that straying from the General Plan has contributed to crowded conditions in the area’s schools and roads.

“I think the strong message is that the General Plan has to be respected, and to the extent it’s not, we get these kinds of problems,” Edmiston said.

The conservancy official said he was troubled by The Times’ findings that developers were sometimes granted density bonuses based on promises of providing open space or affordable housing that never materialized.

Edmiston called for stricter enforcement by county planning officials to ensure that developers carry through on promises.

“I was aghast that they didn’t do that,” he said of enforcement. “What else are we paying them to do?”

If the county is not going to enforce developer promises, the county should not stray from the General Plan, Edmiston said.

Los Angeles City Council members said Monday they have been stricter in granting exceptions to general plans in the city portion of the mountains.

City Councilman Mike Feuer, whose district includes part of the mountains, said the county should reform the way it approves projects.

“It’s been a big mistake,” he said of past practices. “My view is the Santa Monica Mountains are a precious resource and, once you build on them, that’s gone.”

In particular, Feuer said, the conservancy and the county should buy mountain lands for preservation wherever possible while strictly enforcing density limits in the General Plan.