101 Corridor Growth Plan Fuels Debate

During the 1980s, western Los Angeles County was the scene of major clashes between developers and environmentalists who fought over the fate of its rolling hills and majestic oak trees.

Now a new wave of land-use battles appears to be looming over a proposal to dramatically restrict growth in an area that’s become a haven from urban congestion.

Nearly five years in the making, the Ventura Freeway Corridor Areawide Plan was designed to ease traffic, preserve scenic hillsides and increase cooperation between the region’s municipalities as they approve new development.

The first of its kind since 1981, the plan predictably is winning praise from leaders in the cities of Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village and Hidden Hills--which joined Los Angeles County in producing the land-use regulations. But, judging from a recent public hearing on the plan, it is already panicking property owners who say their mostly small-scale residential projects, many of them delayed by the region’s recent recession, would suffer under the proposed guidelines.

Several other public hearings are scheduled before the plan is voted on by the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission, and, ultimately the county Board of Supervisors.

The landowners contend they are being unfairly punished to make up for years of bad planning, with NIMBY attitudes and inadequate roadways fueling the move.

“There’s an assumption that somehow reducing development in that area is going to improve the quality of life, but it doesn’t suggest doing it in any of the cities,” said Michael Lewis, a lobbyist for the Building Industry Assn. “It punishes people in the county and favors anyone in the cities.”

If the reductions are aimed at county land, there’s a reason, said Calabasas Mayor Lesley Devine. Most of the remaining open space is located in what she described as “steep and unsafe terrain.”

“Cities throughout history always developed where it was safe and easy to build,” Devine said. “Only as we got more [construction knowledge] and better building materials did people start saying, ‘We can build on that.’ But you tell me who’s figured out how to tell a mountain not to move.”

Mountains may not have visibly shifted since the plan was undertaken, but as proposed, the land-use guide signals a shift in the balance of power between L.A. County and the area’s young cities.

“Before, the county called all the shots,” Calabasas Planning Commissioner Dave Brown said. “But now the planning for the area is much more in the hands of the city.”

The Ventura Corridor plan covers a 60-square-mile area bound by Ventura County to the north and west, a coastal zone to the south and the city of Los Angeles to the east and northeast. It would reduce building density levels in as many as 5,000 acres, or roughly half the developable county land in the area.

Most affected by the plan would be parcels ranging in size from 10 to 40 acres, much smaller than many of the large-scale projects approved during the 1980s but involving more than one family’s house.

In one proposed project, for example, the maximum number of homes that could be built on a 31-acre parcel at Paul Revere Drive and Mulholland Highway would nose dive from 31 to three. The site is surrounded on three sides by Calabasas.

Architect Carey Hellman said he purchased the land three years ago with the intent to build 30 homes. He considers his plan reasonable given that the lot just south of his has 34 homes on nearly 14 acres, and the lot just north has 70 homes on approximately 25 acres.

“My reasoning is, ‘What’s the big deal if I build 30 homes on 30 acres?’ ” Hellman said. “It’s still half the density of what’s built around me.”

County officials respond by noting that maximum density has never been guaranteed. Projects are routinely approved for far less than the maximum, they say, and the new plan doesn’t preclude amendments.

David C. Hansen, president of the Malibu-based Concerned Citizens for Property Rights Civic Assn., said he believes landowners are being victimized by what he described as the region’s “condo environmentalists.” He also floats the theory that the proposal would devalue the landowners’ property, making it easier for the National Park Service to snap up.

But most seem to agree that the plan was a response to the glut of county-approved development--including development that created the area’s new cities.

“The weird history is that the county permitted a lot of environmentally damaging and otherwise problematic development in that area, much of which ended up being incorporated into Calabasas and Agoura Hills,” said William Fulton, author of “The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles.” “Those communities said, ‘We don’t want any more of this.’ ”

The slow-growth movement became so bitter during the 1980s that it led to a “dump Antonovich” campaign against county Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who was blamed for too often siding with developers. Antonovich was replaced by now-retired Supervisor Ed Edelman--not because of the slow-growth movement, but because the county’s political districts were redrawn.

And it was Edelman, in an effort to reverse the anger toward the county, who proposed updating the county’s plan for the area. Its goals ranged from enabling the local water and school districts to plan for future demands to minimizing the impact of new development on the surrounding cities.

“It was pretty obvious the [plan update] was going to lead to lower densities,” Fulton said. “In the old days, landowners were accustomed to getting their way out there, but now the political dynamics have changed.”

The departure of Antonovich, incorporation of the mountain communities and the National Park Service playing a more active role in the area, according to observers, all helped fuel the shift.

A key example is the proposed extensions of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Agoura Road to the San Fernando Valley, on either side of the Ventura Freeway. County plans had called for the extensions, saying they were needed to alleviate freeway traffic.

But the Park Service, Calabasas and Agoura Hills have opposed the idea for various reasons, including concerns about wildlife, the effect on residential neighborhoods, hillside stability and the expense.

As a result, the proposed road extensions are excluded from the preliminary draft of the new Ventura Corridor plan.

“Twenty to 30 years out, as the area slowly develops, they will be needed to provide managed growth,” predicted Lee Stark, a planner with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. “So from a personal perspective, yes it would damage the environment, but from a planning perspective, it’s got to be.”

Lewis, the building industry lobbyist, agreed, adding:

“The fact of the matter is they let most of the development go without the infrastructure in place and now they don’t have the guts to put it in. My assumption is if you [build] the roads, there wouldn’t be as many problems.”

The proposal to lower densities in county land grew out of concerns not just over traffic, but over environmental habitats, land stability and fire and flood hazards, according to Lloyd Zola of LSA Associates Inc., which prepared the areawide plan.

“There was not a conscious attempt to go through the entire planning area and lower densities everywhere,” Zola said. “There was more of an attempt to see what types of densities make sense given the constraints that we now face.”

“The plan is about maintaining what is most valuable to the area: its hills, trees and streams,” Agoura Hills City Councilman Ed Corridori said.

Whether the proposed changes are fair to landowners, said Fulton, depends on the political assumptions they made when they purchased their property.

“If they really thought they were going to be able to build what’s in the plan and they paid prices based on that assumption then, yeah, it’s hard for them,” Fulton said. “But if they thought they could goose the plan with political juice and now they can’t do that, then that’s too bad for them.”

The plan also improves coordination between the cities and county by requiring that new developments are compatible with neighbors. In the past, a city or the county would approve a project without taking into consideration its effects on a neighboring city.

Even though it is not yet adopted, the plan already seems to be having an effect on municipal relations. Agoura Hills and Calabasas have decided to jointly build a community center.

Public hearings on the preliminary plan are scheduled to continue next month. The regional planning commission must vote on a modified draft plan before it is considered by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. A final vote by the supervisors is not expected before the end of the year, at the earliest.