Revised Growth Plan for Ventura Boulevard Debated

Developers, concerned residents and slow-growth advocates Thursday debated a revised plan regulating growth along Ventura Boulevard before the Los Angeles Planning Commission.

Although an overflow crowd filled the Van Nuys Women’s Club for the hearing and comments of both supporters and opponents were greeted with applause, the hearing was markedly less emotional than previous meetings on the proposal.

The opinions repeated the stands taken when the Los Angeles City Planning Department earlier this month released the proposal, called the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan.

Commercial property owners blasted the plan as too restrictive and complained about proposed fees on new projects. Homeowners said that the plan was not restrictive enough and that more attention should be paid to preserving some of the village atmosphere of the Valley’s main street.

“Homeowners are not against growth or against development,” said Rob Glushon, president of the Encino Property Owners Assn. “But we want quality, service-oriented development on Ventura Boulevard. Up to now, there has been development after development on the boulevard without any regard for the surrounding residential neighborhoods.”

But developers said improvements to ease the worsening traffic along the boulevard could not be made without development, which would help pay for street widening and other mitigation.

“The city isn’t going to pay for improvements,” said Mike Zugsmith, a commercial investor and developer. “Where is the money going to come from?”

The proposal’s major points include:

* Limiting the additional growth on the boulevard to 8.6 million square feet of commercial space. The boulevard now has about 19 million square feet of commercial space.

* Limiting the additional automobile trips per day on the boulevard, generated by development, to 30,000. Transportation analysts estimate that motorists now make 70,000 trips per day on the street.

The size of individual new projects would be partly determined by the amount of traffic they generate. Office projects, for example, generate far less traffic than retail projects and thus could be larger.

Fred Kramer of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. attacked the plan as more of a “traffic mitigation” plan than a slow-growth measure.

Developers said they were especially concerned about the Planning Department’s recommendation that traffic mitigation fees to be paid by builders of new projects range from $3,838 to $7,629 per daily trip, depending on location.

The fees would generate $170 million if the maximum amount of commercial space were built. The fees would pay for street improvements and widening. To accommodate the additional traffic, city engineers say, streets must be widened for 370 feet on either side of major intersections.

“There comes a point where financial restrictions won’t allow for development,” said Rebecca Boyle of the Business Property Council, an organization of developers and property owners. “A $7,000 fee won’t let any development happen.”

Commission President William G. Luddy said the panel would make its recommendations in a few weeks to the City Council, which will make the final decision on the plan.