L.A. Blamed for Allowing Development on Hillside : Braude Focus of Criticism at Woodland Hills Meeting

Angry Woodland Hills homeowners confronted Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude on Thursday to repeat their charges that city officials were negligent in allowing a condominium project to be built on a hill above their neighborhood.

The residents, who met with Braude in the front yard of a home directly below the $7.5-million West Hills Condominiums, said the city Building and Safety Department permitted the developer to build the complex higher than legally allowed and was lax in enforcing requirements for landscaping of the development.

They complained that the complex is so big and ugly that it lowered property values in their 30-year-old neighborhood.

Homeowners’ Leader

“This whole thing could have been stopped when all that was up there was a bunch of 2 by 4s,” said Hope Perry, a Kelvin Avenue resident who, with her husband Sid, has helped lead opposition to the project. “But the city just let this go on and on. Now look what we’ve got.”

Although several residents raised their voices, the tone was more conciliatory than hostile toward Braude, who was blasted by a group of Encino homeowners a week earlier in a development dispute that set off fistfights.

Braude calmly told the Woodland Hills group that, despite their unhappiness and some pending questions about the project, the complex was on the hill to stay.

“My own feeling is that you should be prepared to live with this development,” Braude said. “You’ve expressed all the things you can regarding this. Now is the time to start healing and move on. You should start to work together to protect the community.”

Review Termed Unique

The councilman added that there had been “more review of this project than any other project in the history of the city.”

Development partner James R. Gary, who said he was not invited to the meeting, added that he was frustrated by the continuing complaints of homeowners.

“I’ve had it with this nonsense and misinformation that these folks are putting out,” Gary said. “We’re not only complying with the laws, we’re going beyond compliance, according to the Department of Building and Safety.”

The homeowners complained for months that the 80-unit project is illegal because it violates building requirements set by the City Council’s initial approval in 1978.

Braude in April called for an investigation into approval of the project after construction permit irregularities were discovered. He said it needed to be determined once and for all whether the project is too tall, too wide or deficient in parking, as neighbors claimed.

City zoning officials ruled in May that several loft structures atop the building exceeded a 45-foot height requirement imposed by the city 10 years ago and must be altered.

The Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled to hear an appeal by the developer of that decision Sept. 5.

Braude said Chief Zoning Administrator Franklin P. Eberhard will consider both sides of the controversy. “I’m confident Frank Eberhard will be fair,” he said. “My sense is that it’s in the hands of his department. If we can get cooperation from the builder, we should try to get that. If you feel the past has been bad, you must still move forward.”

But Braude did not appear to mollify several members of the group.

“How do you compensate the financial loss to the homeowners?” asked Richard Oedy, who has lived in the neighborhood for 22 years.

“There is no way to recoup that,” Braude said softly.

Paula Corby, who lives below the project, said that despite many promises, the developer had failed to put in landscaping to shield the project from view. “I was guaranteed that the worst, the absolute worst we would see is the top of the building,” she said. “I was told it would look like a forest.”

Most of the three-story building is visible from the streets below.

Gordon Murley, another resident, repeated a charge that the Building and Safety Department had been unethical in approving the project.

It was the second time in two weeks that Braude faced angry San Fernando Valley homeowners.

In a meeting last week, preceded by fistfights between rival homeowner groups, Braude was criticized by Encino residents for wavering in his support of proposals to extend Reseda Boulevard southward into the Santa Monica Mountains in Tarzana.

Encino residents said Braude had pledged 10 years ago that he would support the extension to alleviate heavy traffic on Encino streets that lead from the Valley into the Los Angeles Basin. However, Braude changed his mind a few months ago after protests by Tarzana residents, who oppose the extension.