Woo Urges Plan to Ease Laurel Canyon Congestion

Eight years ago, a fire struck Laurel Canyon and destroyed 24 homes in four hours. Firefighters said they had trouble getting to the burning homes at the top of a ridge because of the canyon’s narrow, car-lined streets.

‘I Was Shocked’

A small construction boom has left those narrow streets even more congested today and prompted Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo to call last week for a plan to deal with deficiencies in the city’s zoning and building regulations for Laurel Canyon and its enforcement of existing laws.

“I was shocked that so much development was allowed to go on without attention to the needs of the area,” Woo said, recalling a tour of the canyon last month. “It was almost as if the city had closed its eyes to the support systems, such as sewers and lights, while at the same time it was very willing, I think irresponsibly, to allow permits for new construction to be issued.”

Since a one-year building moratorium was placed on the canyon’s smaller lots (5,000 square feet or less) last June, homeowners have noticed builders rushing to develop larger lots higher up the hillside, probably in anticipation of stricter regulations to come, said James A. Nelson, chairman of the Coalition of Laurel Canyon Homeowners Assns.

‘Frightening Proposition’

“I really think if there were a fire, there would be more houses burning down than necessary,” said Melanie Topp, who has lived on Appian Way for three years. “It’s a frightening proposition.”

If Woo’s proposal is approved, the city attorney and the city planning, building and safety, and fire departments will collaborate on a comprehensive plan to solve the canyon’s fire access problems.

The plan would also address related problems such as paying for street widening, inadequate front and side setbacks for new homes, bootleg apartments and development that is too dense for the area or that strains the existing infrastructure, Woo said.

The canyon’s homeowners groups have lobbied for council action on the problems and heartily support Woo’s proposal.

But Berndt Lohr-Schmidt, a steering committee member of the Hillside Property Owners Assn., said that although there is a problem with the Fire Department’s access to the hills, he is opposed to any regulations that would make those who own undeveloped lots entirely responsible for keeping the streets passable.

Many of the canyon’s open lots were subdivided in the 1920s, when the area was resort similar to Big Bear Lake. The tracts were accepted by the city even though many of the streets lacked storm drains, sewers and pavement.

“The city is also responsible,” said Lohr-Schmidt, who owns several undeveloped lots in the canyon. “Preventing people from improving properties on these substandard streets is in essence taking these properties until the streets are improved.”

He said requiring front setbacks would also be unfair. “I would estimate that 80% to 90% of lots on the hillsides would be unbuildable if front yards are required.”

“The problem I have with the way this motion is coming about . . . is that it is middle-class, upper-middle-class existing homeowners deciding that they have arrived and they want to pull up the proverbial gangplank to prevent others from coming in,” he added. “It allows the majority to determine the minority’s property rights.”

But Nelson retorted by paraphrasing 17th-Century philosopher John Locke: “The rights of the individual sometimes have to be suborned to the needs of the community as a whole. If we don’t do that, we’re no longer civilized.”

The council’s Planning and Environment Committee is expected to discuss Woo’s proposal on Tuesday.