Plan Stirs New Fight on Ventura Boulevard : Spirited Hearing Over Growth Curbs Forecast

A long-standing conflict between homeowners and developers over a plan aimed at controlling growth along Ventura Boulevard, the San Fernando Valley’s main street, is expected to escalate this week at a public hearing on the latest version of the proposal.

The Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan has been the focus of a bitter dispute between developers, community leaders and homeowner groups since 1987. A committee of homeowner leaders and business people working on the plan only reached agreement in mid-August after 2 1/2 years of debating whether the plan is fair to property owners.

The boulevard is fast becoming overrun with traffic, noise and development, Los Angeles city officials say.

The plan, also shaped by city planners and consultants, calls for building restrictions and traffic improvements over the next 20 years in Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills.

Restrict Building Heights

Highlights include restricting the height of most buildings to two or three stories and forcing developers to pay for traffic improvements through a special tax based on the estimated amount of traffic that their projects would generate.

City Councilman Marvin Braude, who represents part of the boulevard, said the plan contains “the most far-reaching growth controls in the history of Los Angeles. It will substantially reduce the amount of building on the boulevard, but I think it’s fair.”

But other reviews of the plan are mostly negative. It has been blasted by homeowners as not being restrictive enough and by property owners as being too restrictive.

And those familiar with the plan believe that a public hearing scheduled Thursday in Tarzana will be as spirited as some of the citizens committee meetings.

Shortcomings Alleged

Rob Glushon, president of the Encino Property Owners Assn., said the proposal “does not go far enough. It pits one community against another. It will cost more to build in Studio City than in Woodland Hills, so that will encourage all the developers to go to Woodland Hills.”

Fred Kramer, vice president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., said all new buildings should be no more than two stories. He added that developers should be forced to pay higher fees for generating more traffic. “They’re getting away with murder,” he said.

But Mike Zugsmith, president of Zugsmith & Associates, a commercial real estate brokerage that represents for lease or sale more than 1 million square feet on Ventura Boulevard, said the plan will bring development on the boulevard to a halt.

“It’s playing with fire,” Zugsmith said. “It’s so restrictive that folks who own large and small pieces of property aren’t going to be able to build anything they want to. It will have a negative snowball effect on the whole economy. Developers will just go elsewhere, to places where they’re more welcome. And if you choke off development, there will be no money to solve the problems that already exist.”

Jona Goldrich--co-developer of a three-story, 375,000-square-foot shopping center, retail and office complex on Ventura Boulevard in Encino--said the plan’s proposed density for the boulevard is much too low.

“Everyone is hung up on having low-rise buildings when it would make more sense to have higher buildings with more open space,” Goldrich said. “You could have more greenery that way. But it’s going to be nothing but junkie low-rise buildings. That will make for ugly office buildings.”

Dick Platkin, project manager of the plan for the city Planning Department, said he is not surprised by the dispute. “It’s an emotional issue because there are two sides who have real concerns.

“It’s especially emotional for people who have plans and have spent money to develop their property on Ventura Boulevard because those plans could very well have to change now,” Platkin said. “And it’s emotional for those people who want a good quality of life and some relief from the noise, congestion and building up on the boulevard.”

A Planning Department examiner will take public testimony on the plan starting at 6 p.m. Thursday at Portola Junior High School, 18720 Linnet St. A 4 p.m. workshop will precede the hearing.

Citizens who cannot attend the hearing can submit written testimony to the Planning Department, Platkin said.

After listening to the comments, the examiner is to prepare a report and recommendation that will be presented to the Planning Commission by Nov. 9. Details of the plan can be revised as it winds toward final consideration by the City Council early next year. Officials said several public hearings will be scheduled along the way.

In the area of Ventura Boulevard affected by the plan--from Barham Boulevard in Studio City to Leonora Drive in Woodland Hills--there is already about 19 million square feet of development, mostly in Encino and Sherman Oaks. Motorists make about 70,000 trips a day on the busy thoroughfare. If there were no controls on growth, about 40 million square feet of commercial development could be built, and 150,000 more vehicle trips would be generated, “which would result in round-the-clock traffic jams,” Platkin said.

“The boulevard is already out of control,” he said. “Unless we get a plan now, it will become unmanageable. We need a dramatic reduction in the amount of density and traffic.”

With upgraded traffic signals, street widenings and other improvements--to be paid for by development fees proposed in the plan--the boulevard could accommodate another 8.6 million square feet of commercial development and more than 29,000 additional auto trips a day by the year 2010, he said.

The most disputed portion of the plan deals with a trip tax, to be imposed on developers according to the number of vehicle trips their projects generate during peak rush-hour periods.

Platkin said his office has been flooded with calls from business people and property owners seeking information. “There is an enormous amount of people who want to know what’s going on with this and how this will affect them,” he said. “If all I had to do was answer their questions, I’d never get off the phone.”

Meanwhile, leaders of homeowners groups were meeting to form a united front to protest portions of the proposal. “We all need to be together on this,” Glushon said.

The plan contains what city planners call revolutionary concepts.

Among them are the trip tax and measures to transform parts of the car-heavy thoroughfare into “pedestrian villages,” with sidewalk cafes and benches to encourage commuters to walk instead of drive.

Other measures to improve the appearance of the street are also addressed.

The plan calls for structures of at least two stories to have the second one set back so that the building’s front does not resemble a vertical wall. No new building could be more than six stories, and the square footage of a building could not be more than 1 1/2 times its lot size.

Mirrored or reflected glass on buildings would be prohibited except as trim. All new projects, except for single-family residences, would be required to undergo land-use and design review by the Planning Department before building permits could be issued.

Owners of buildings with surface parking lots would be required to put trees every four parking spaces. The five affected communities could have distinctive sidewalks to distinguish them from the other communities.

Retail, offices and banks would be required to provide one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area. Restaurants would be required to provide one space for each 100 square feet of floor area.

Under the plan, the development fee for each average daily trip to a development would be $4,687 for Studio City, $3,910 for Sherman Oaks and Encino, $2,156 for Tarzana and $2,194 for Woodland Hills. The aim is to encourage development along less-congested areas of the street.

The fees, which would be payable when property owners apply for building permits, would raise more than $90 million, Platkin said. About 90% of such funds would pay for certain scenic improvements, including landscaping, and for parking and intersection widening.

The remaining 10% would help pay expenditures associated with drafting the plan, he said. Studies leading up to the preliminary draft of the proposal have cost about $500,000, officials said.

The breakdown of the 29,331 new vehicle trips called for in the plan is 5,196 for Studio City, 2,844 for Sherman Oaks, 4,383 for Encino, 6,859 for Tarzana and 10,049 for Woodland Hills.

The number of trips to be generated by a development would vary by area, according to the plan.

In Studio City, 2.75 trips would result for every 1,000 square feet of land to be developed. For each 1,000 square feet of property in other areas, 2.98 trips would be generated in Sherman Oaks, 2.91 trips in Encino, 2.39 trips in Tarzana and 2.35 trips in Woodland Hills.

For instance, if a Studio City property owner with a 10,000-square-foot parcel wanted to build on his property, he would be assessed for about 27 trips.

The size of the building to be allowed on that lot would depend on the type of business planned. The owner could build a 1,000-square-foot convenience market, a general office building of about 7,000 square feet, a medical office building of about 8,000 square feet or a quality restaurant of about 9,570 square feet.

Homeowner representatives complain that the developer fees are too low. They say there should be an across-the-board tax of at least $5,000 per trip. “These folks could afford $10,000 a trip,” Kramer said.

But Zugsmith, co-developer of an 80,000-square-foot building in Sherman Oaks, said the proposed fees are already so prohibitive that he would not be able to complete his project. “We can’t live with those fees,” he said. “Small property owners can’t live with that kind of tax.”

Zugsmith added that builders of new projects would be unfairly penalized if the plan were adopted. “The city allowed all this development to go on in the first place, and there were no fees,” he said. “Now that they recognize the problem, is it logical to penalize all the new developers? Don’t the others have responsibility?”

Platkin, like Zugsmith, believes that previous developers should pay their fair share for improvements along the boulevard. He said plans are under way to establish a special assessment tax for present landowners. But that issue must be debated separately by the City Council, he said.

If adopted, the plan would be updated every five years, Platkin said. A plan review board of city planners and Los Angeles City Council appointees would be established and would meet twice monthly to study results of the controls.

Platkin said he is prepared to hear criticism of the plan. “There will probably be complaints on this aspect or that aspect of it, but we’re ready,” he said. “We want to hear from everybody we can.”