Ruling a Blow to Development of Pastureland

The state Court of Appeal has stopped the City of Industry from using redevelopment law to finance a massive commercial and industrial project on 600 acres of pastureland.

The ruling came at almost the same time a new lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to force the city to rewrite its General Plan to allow the construction of thousands of houses, apartments and condominium units on the disputed 600 acres and on adjoining land.

Both suits were instigated by the Industry Civic Planning Assn., a nonprofit organization of property and business owners who are critical of the city’s operations.

W. W. Shepherd, the association president, hailed the appellate decision as a blow against abuses of state redevelopment law and a “victory for those who strongly favor redevelopment for its proper purposes.”

The ruling jeopardizes the city redevelopment agency’s plans to create a commercial and industrial complex that city officials say would generate thousands of jobs.

The suit, filed in 1988, challenged the city’s declaration that 600 acres of vacant property on the north side of the Pomona Freeway near Grand Avenue were blighted. The “blight” designation qualified the land, purchased by the agency for $27 million, for inclusion in a redevelopment project area and would have channeled property tax dollars to the agency.

The city contended that the area qualified as blighted because of the millions of dollars required to improve it for development.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz upheld the city’s position in March of last year, but a three-justice panel in the state Court of Appeal reversed that decision in a 33-page opinion issued Monday.

The appellate court said an area cannot be called blighted just because it has to be improved to be suitable for industrial development.

“That this 600 acres of open, undeveloped land may have as great, or greater value to the community in its present state as it would if developed for industrial use, appears to have escaped (the city) entirely,” the court said.

The court said the redevelopment agency has derived no revenue from the 600 acres since it acquired the land in 1983, even though the property has been used for both grazing and hay production. The court said it was unable to determine from the record why the land produced no revenue.

City Atty. Graham Ritchie said the property is used as grazing land under a permit granted by the redevelopment agency board to Mayor John Ferrero. Though the agency derives no revenue, Ritchie said, the cattle keep vegetation under control, reducing the fire danger.

Ritchie said that he had not yet studied the judicial ruling but expects the city to file for a rehearing or appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

The city attorney termed it “incredible” that anyone would think that it would be better to use the 600 acres for agriculture rather than new businesses. He said the city has been planning a $500-million development that would create thousands of jobs.

“If they want to trade that off for a few cows, that’s not being realistic,” he said.

But attorney R. Bruce Tepper Jr., who represents the Industry Civic Planning Assn. and two other plaintiffs--a watchdog group called the Concerned Redevelopment Officials of Southern California and a taxpayer, Susan Berg--said the appellate decision was “thrilling for us.”

Tepper said the city’s attempt to characterize open land as “blight” was a “gross perversion of the law.” He added: “We’re pleased the Court of Appeal saw through that charade.”

Attorney Murray Kane, who also represented the plaintiffs, said the ruling shows that state redevelopment law does work and that abuses can be dealt with by the courts while preserving the redevelopment process for blighted property.

Meanwhile, the City of Industry will be facing another major legal challenge in the new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Industry Civic Planning Assn.

The suit alleges that the city violated state law by failing to provide an adequate amount of housing in its General Plan. The complaint seeks a court order to stop the city from issuing building permits for non-housing construction on vacant land until it revises the General Plan.

Leaders of the association said city businesses employ 70,000 workers, but there are only 74 homes within its borders.

Attorney Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, who represents the association, said planning consultants hired by the association have found that, to meet state requirements, the city should plan for 17,839 housing units.

Since most of the city is already developed, it may not be practical to require the city to have that many units. But Lehrer-Graiwer said there is one large remaining open area that could provide housing. The targeted area, between Valley Boulevard and the Pomona Freeway, east of Brea Canyon Road, totals 1,087 acres and includes the 600 acres involved in the “blight” lawsuit.

The association commissioned a planning study that shows how the property could be developed with 5,728 housing units, a park and two schools and still have room for some industrial and commercial development.

Lehrer-Graiwer said the housing element of the city’s General Plan violates state law by failing to analyze the city’s housing needs properly and by failing to identify sites in the city where housing could be built. He said that the city’s General Plan proposes housing on city-owned land in Diamond Bar and Chino Hills, but that this does not meet state requirements.

“The state has determined that every city has to provide its share of housing,” he said. “The City of Industry has to change its ways.”

Ritchie said he has not had time to study the new lawsuit, but added he does not believe that the state law requires the City of Industry to provide any more housing than it has already proposed.

Ritchie said the city, which stretches about 14 miles along railroad lines and the Pomona Freeway, is ideally suited for industrial and business development.

If the area occupied by Industry and the neighboring communities were in one city, Ritchie said, “you wouldn’t dream of building housing” in the Industry portion.

But Shepherd said the rolling hills that constitute much of the remaining vacant land in Industry are better suited to housing than to industrial plants.

Besides, the association president said, the population increase might make city government more responsive to the people who work there. Workers would have a chance to move into the city, he said, and become voters.