Neighbors Organize Against Development : Brentwood: The group has mounted such strong opposition to a plan for 34 estate-size houses that it might be scuttled.
On a March morning four years ago, Eric Edmunds awoke to the sounds of the future outside his door: Down below his Mandeville Canyon home, workers were busy chopping away the chaparral to make room for a housing development, the first in Brentwood in a decade.
Although it was too late to prevent construction of that 13-lot, 98-acre project, known as Brentwood Country Estates, Edmunds and other like-minded residents of the Santa Monica Mountains vowed not to let another development invade their scenic environs.
So when a Canadian developer announced plans the following year for an even bigger project on a hilltop a quarter-mile northwest of the first, Edmunds and others joined in opposition.
They formed a nonprofit organization called Save Our Mountains Inc. and are in a pitched battle with a subsidiary of the Toronto-based Coscan Corp. over 240 acres on which the company envisions developing 34 estate-size lots.
The proposal has rocked the normally staid community. Opponents collected 10,000 signatures on a petition asking city officials to halt the project, which the developers have promised will not irreparably damage the environment.
Although the developer is negotiating to sell the land to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which would scuttle the project, the mere idea of building something like Brentwood Country Estates has put the fear of overdevelopment in people.
“The development will have a profoundly destructive ecological impact on the Santa Monica Mountains,” said Edmunds, adding that the project will unearth nearly 3 million cubic yards of dirt--a figure the developers do not dispute. “This is an immense project. It can’t help but trash the ecosystem.”
The project’s proposed design has escalated the controversy. One item under dispute is the number of lots that would be located atop the mountain.
Because of different interpretations of density regulations in the area, Coscan plans to build either 15 estate sites along Mandeville Canyon Road and 19 at the top of a hill north of Chalon Road, or put all 34 sites--encompassing three to 15 acres each--on the mountain peak.
Edmunds and other critics say they believe zoning restrictions would limit the number of lots to 17.
City planners have not yet formally weighed in on the project. They will begin reviewing the plans when Coscon/Davidson submits an environmental impact report, which the developer expects to complete by March.
Another source of dispute is a proposed 200-foot tunnel road designed to bore through a hill and emerge onto a corkscrew highway to take drivers to the top of the mountain.
Coscan/Davidson officials say the tunnel was designed to prevent the mountain from being graded for a road. But critics view the tunnel idea as too ambitious.
All in all, project manager Andrew Oliver maintains the development will not seriously harm the environment, saying that Coscan/Davidson has taken pains to be as least disruptive as possible.
For example, he said, of the 240 acres available for development, only 67 acres will be built upon. Likewise, he said, putting 34 estate lots on top of the hill would be environmentally sensitive because the houses would be out of view of canyon-dwellers and it would avoid grading along Mandeville Canyon Road, which would require ripping out the sides of the hill and installing huge retaining walls.
“A lot of the opposition is emotional opposition that doesn’t give consideration to what is being planned,” Oliver said. “These proposals were very sensitive on our part.”
The dispute could be rendered moot if Coscon/Davidson sells the land to the conservancy. Coscan/Davidson is trying to work out a deal with the conservancy, but the state agency is prohibited by law from paying more than the land’s appraised value.
The appraisal was submitted last week to Coscan/Davidson and the conservancy but was not made public.
“Hopefully, the good people who want us to go away will allow us to go away properly,” Oliver said. “We have no intention of selling for anything less than what we feel is fair market value.”
Still, the developers and homeowners agree on one thing: Brentwood Country Estates galvanized opposition.
“The people I’ve talked to in (the residents group) and in Mandeville Canyon feel that (it) was one they let through,” Oliver said. “It gave the opposition a chance to go back and reflect on ways they could better oppose us.”
Indeed, Edmunds and other residents remain angry over the presence of Brentwood Country Estates. Though the development was finished in late 1991, complete with paved roads and sidewalks, so far, no estate lots have been sold.
Only one house, to be built by the partners in the project, is scheduled to go up on the property.
Rodrigo Iglesias, the listing agent for the $2.5-million to $7-million lots, blames the recession and the soft real estate market. For many prospective buyers, Iglesias said, it’s cheaper to buy an existing house rather than purchase a lot and then build.
The lack of construction has also put off buyers, who tend to be apprehensive about being the first residents in the development. Still, he said, “eventually, it will be the most exclusive gated community in Los Angeles.”
