Parkland Road Dispute Resurfaces : Environment: A ban on extending Reseda Boulevard to Mulholland Highway is challenged at a Planning Commission meeting.

A bitter controversy over a plan to pave a route for commuters through state parkland was resurrected Thursday when advocates questioned a law designed to ban an extension of Reseda Boulevard.

More than 100 people packed a Los Angeles Planning Commission meeting in Sherman Oaks, turning the discussion of a technical legal issue into a full-blown debate on the merits of parkland preservation versus traffic relief.

One group of Encino residents lobbied for an extension of Reseda Boulevard into Topanga State Park as far as Mulholland Highway, saying it would ease traffic caused by commuters motoring through their neighborhoods.

“One road does not mean the loss of what they say is one of the biggest parks in the country,” Nancy Collis of Encino said. “I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a cross-mountain route to Mulholland.”

But the opposition was just as adamant.

“It seems to me we’re in danger of having a technicality thwart the will of the people,” said Suzanne Goode, associate resource ecologist for the Angeles District of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. “It really is quite frustrating when you consider the vast majority of people don’t want the road to go through and they want the resources to be protected.”

The discussion arose after a developer asked the city to modify the conditions it set more than a decade ago to reflect changes in state law. The city had required Harlan Lee & Associates to extend and pave Reseda Boulevard in return for approval of a 178-house project near the park.

But 1991 legislation written by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood) authorized state parks officials to restrict the extension of Reseda Boulevard if they determined it would negatively affect Topanga State Park. State parks officials then proclaimed that the road should not be built because it would destabilize mountain slopes, create fire hazards and promote developments.

An amendment to the law also required Harlan Lee & Associates to turn over the money saved--by not building the road--to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for traffic improvements in the San Fernando Valley by the end of 1991. The commission received no money, city officials said.

Harlan Lee & Associates representative Jeff Lee said the firm actually lost about $200,000 in making improvements designated by park officials, such as installing a parking lot and paving a cul-de-sac at the current end of Reseda Boulevard.

Confronted by conflicting financial analyses of the situation, the planning commissioners Thursday asked a city engineer to prepare an independent cost assessment to determine whether the developer has met the conditions.

Friedman, who testified before the commissioners, said he believes the legislation means Reseda Boulevard may not legally be extended.

“It’s not up for this commission or any other city agency to determine whether my state law should be followed,” he told the Planning Commission.