Panel OKs High-Rise Moratorium on Ventura Blvd.

Expressing alarm at the growing number of high-rises on Ventura Boulevard, the City Planning Commission on Thursday approved a one-year moratorium on structures of more than three stories along a 15-mile stretch of the street.

Before it can go into effect, the measure must be approved by the City Council’s Planning Committee and the full council, which recently rejected a moratorium on high-rise development in Westwood.

The moratorium also would cut by half the floor space permitted for new buildings along the boulevard, which runs along the southern base of the Valley through the affluent communities of Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills.

Homeowners in the four affected communities have complained about the effect of office buildings on a street that for decades served largely as an upscale shopping area for local residents.

New office buildings up to six stories--the current maximum--have overshadowed nearby single-family houses and have contributed to daylong traffic congestion on the boulevard, residents say.

Problems on Side Streets

Homeowners also complain that people who work in the office buildings park on residential streets up to three blocks from Ventura Boulevard.

A city Transportation Department report released last month predicted traffic gridlock at rush hour when construction is completed next year on six large office buildings, with cars backed up through several stop lights for five Encino intersections.

The moratorium, supported by council members Marvin Braude, Joel Wachs and Joy Picus, who represent the area, was approved on a 3-1 commission vote.

The measure would not affect projects for which building permits have already been issued.

Referring to office buildings already under construction in Encino, Commissioner Suzette Neiman said, “It may already be too late for this moratorium.”

Daniel P. Garcia, commission president, said, “If I thought it would fly, I’d be willing to vote for a total moratorium.”

The lone opponent was Commissioner William G. Luddy, who asked for more time for property owners and business groups to study the proposed ordinance.

The moratorium, which could be extended for a second year by council vote, is designed to give city planners time to devise new regulations to control boulevard development.

Affected Area

The affected area stretches from Coldwater Canyon Boulevard on the eastern edge of Sherman Oaks to Valley Circle Boulevard in Woodland Hills.

At the request of the Studio City Residents Assn., extension of the moratorium three miles east to Lankershim Boulevard will be studied before the measure is presented to the full council, said Howard Raphael, an aide to Wachs.

Braude, who first proposed the moratorium, predicted that it would be an important step in halting the spread of buildings “grossly out of scale” with surrounding stores and houses.

Most of the larger new buildings are in Encino. But Braude predicted that the “pain we feel today in Encino is what is coming tomorrow for Tarzana, Sherman Oaks, Woodland Hills and even Studio City.”

In response to those who argued for tighter restrictions, Braude defended the proposed ordinance as “realistic, something that will work in the City Council.”

The measure drew support from the Tarzana Property Owners Assn. and the Studio City Residents Assn. But it was opposed as inadequate by the Homeowners of Encino and the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, called it a sham and “far too little and far too late.”

He argued that developers should be permitted only to replace existing buildings with structures of equal size during the moratorium.

The ordinance would permit developers to build 1 1/2 square feet of structures for every square foot of property. Current zoning allows three square feet for every square foot of property.

The ordinance would also allow developers to argue for exemptions to the limits by showing that a project’s effect on congestion would be offset by such things as free employee parking, street widenings, staggered work hours or shuttle buses.

Silver contended that such “loopholes” in the moratorium could permit additional buildings taller than three stories, including a 250-room hotel that has been proposed for the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Gaviota Avenue.

But Garcia and city planners expressed doubt that a developer could afford to provide enough traffic relief to obtain an exemption.

Garcia insisted that the six-story hotel project, which has not yet been submitted for city approval, would be banned under the moratorium.

He also warned homeowners that “if you overreach, you may lose everything.”

Although no developers opposed the ordinance outright, several asked that a vote be delayed to permit more study.

Cindy Miscikowski, Braude’s chief deputy, said that there has been “great interest from developers, but so far it’s been behind the scenes.”

She said business interests “will definitely be heard from when this gets to the council.”

In another matter affecting Ventura Boulevard, the commission postponed until Sept. 12 a vote on a proposed sign ordinance that would force removal of 40% of the signs along that street in Encino.