Merchants, Homeowners Clash Over Lid on Boulevard

Ventura Boulevard property owners Thursday condemned a plan aimed at controlling development over the next 20 years on the San Fernando Valley’s “main street,” saying the restrictions would ruin their land values.

Residents responded that the plan was needed in order to protect them from overdevelopment, noise and gridlock traffic that is spilling into residential neighborhoods.

The conflicting points of view were aired at a hearing on the proposed Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, held at Portola Junior High School in Tarzana before Gordon Hamilton, an examiner for the Los Angeles Planning Department. Hamilton will incorporate the comments into a report to be presented to the Planning Commission on Dec. 14.

The disputes echoed long-running arguments among developers, community leaders and homeowner groups, who have been battling over the impact of development on the boulevard since 1987.

The proposal has been blasted by property owners as too restrictive and by homeowners as not restrictive enough.

“This is not just going to hurt us; this would destroy us,” said businessman Pete Austin, who owns an actuarial service and is head of a group of 100 commercial property owners that he said does not include major developers. He said the plan “is destroying our rights. It’s just wrong.”

‘Overly Dense’

Homeowner Jerry Zimmer of Sherman Oaks countered: “These unsightly office and shopping centers we have already are no good. These overly dense centers are undesirable, especially when they’re almost in the back yards of residents.”

Although the plan was partially designed to curb development of major projects on the boulevard, Austin said it would affect mainly property owners who have small- to medium-sized parcels that they may want to build on.

“About 80% of the property owners have a small amount of frontage,” he said. “With all the restrictions, we won’t be able to build anything. It’s not fair.”

But other homeowners said the plan did not go far enough. “Ventura Boulevard is a nightmare, a disaster,” said Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino. “We want no more theaters, no more nightclubs or commercial development. We’re not going to take it anymore.”

Details of the plan may be revised in other hearings before it reaches the Los Angeles City Council for final approval, officials said.

The plan, which was shaped by city planners, consultants and a citizens advisory committee, calls for building restrictions and traffic improvements in Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills.

About 19 million square feet of development is affected, mostly in Encino and Sherman Oaks. Motorists now make about 70,000 trips a day on the busy thoroughfare.

If there were no controls on development, about 40 million square feet of commercial development could be built, generating 150,000 more vehicular trips, “which would result in round-the-clock traffic jams,” said Dick Platkin, project manager of the plan for the Planning Department.

But with upgraded traffic signals, street widening and other improvements, to be paid for by proposed development fees, the boulevard could accommodate an additional 8.6 million square feet of commercial development and more than 29,000 added auto trips a day by the year 2010, he said.

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

Tied to Traffic

Other highlights of the plan include limiting the size of projects according to the amount of traffic they generate. The proposal also calls for measures to transform parts of the car-clogged thoroughfare into “pedestrian villages” with sidewalk cafes and benches to encourage commuters to walk instead of drive.

The proposal covers all of the property fronting Ventura and Cahuenga Boulevard from east of Barham Boulevard in Studio City to Leonora Drive in Woodland Hills.

The plan would also require the second story of structures at least two stories high to be set back from the edge of the building so that the front would not form a vertical wall. Mirrored glass on buildings would be prohibited except as trim. All new projects, except for single-family residences, would need to undergo land-use and design review by the Planning Department before a building permit could be issued.

Also, owners of buildings with surface parking lots could be required to place trees every four parking spaces. The five communities would have distinctive sidewalks to distinguish them from each other.

Under the plan, the fee per daily average 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 fees, which would be payable when a property owner applied for a building permit, would raise more than $90 million, Platkin said. About 90% of such funds would pay for scenic improvements, including landscaping, and for parking and widening intersections.

The remaining 10% would help pay for consultants and other 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.

Varying Car Trips

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

In Studio City, 2.75 trips would result for every 1,000 square feet of property. 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.

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. Developers say the proposed fees are already too high.

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