County Rejects Once-OKd Project in Santa Monicas

Reversing a long-standing practice, the county Planning Commission on Wednesday turned down a developer seeking permission to build 50 homes in a long-delayed Santa Monica Mountains project first approved 20 years ago.

Citing fire safety concerns, the commissioners unanimously refused a request by builder Brian Semler to begin construction of the proposed subdivision at the end of a winding, two-lane road surrounded by steep, wildfire-prone hillsides.

Robert I. McMurry, Semler’s attorney, said he will appeal to the Board of Supervisors. He blamed the commission’s decision on county politics and a recent series in The Times that detailed problems with long-lived development projects in the region.

McMurry, a well-known land use lawyer, said the county has for the last 30 years given permission to build subdivisions that have been granted delays. “We think it’s very clear-cut that they can’t do this,” he said of the commission’s decision.

The Semler project was first approved in 1981, when the county planned to build a major road through Triunfo Canyon.

At the time, county officials contend, they allowed the development despite access concerns because they expected the road to be built, providing a second means of escape in case of wildfire.

Since then, however, Westlake Village blocked extension of the road through its borders to prevent further growth in the area, which has endured many wildfires in the last 20 years.

Though county approval was supposed to expire in 1984, the development plan stayed alive through court battles and extensions granted by county and state agencies.

County building officials and environmentalists have complained about the extensions given to projects in the Santa Monica Mountains, saying that Semler’s subdivision and dozens of others have escaped updated fire and safety regulations.

Developers have a backlog of more than 1,500 unbuilt homes in the mountains that have been approved but not yet built, according to an analysis by The Times. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has called such projects “time bombs,” because they pose roadblocks to continued preservation of the local wilderness and recreation area.

McMurry said he knows of only one other project in 30 years denied an extension, proof that his client is being treated unfairly.

He noted that county officials failed to raise fire safety concerns in granting the project an extension in 1984, although the expansion of Triunfo Road had already been blocked.

McMurry defended the site’s fire safety. He said the original approval contained an emergency route--a dirt road between the property and a mobile home park. That dirt road, now blocked at both ends by gates, could serve as access for fire vehicles. He said homes in the development could be made nearly fireproof.

“The approval of this tract will improve fire safety conditions in this area,” he told the commission.

McMurry said after the hearing that the decision to deny his client’s development was motivated by the desire to obtain the property for parkland. He blames Yaroslavsky and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state agency charged with preserving open space in the region.

The two sides began negotiations last year but never reached a deal.

Semler said Wednesday that the conservancy backed out at the last minute. Joseph T. Edmiston, head of the conservancy, said the two sides were never close to an agreement.

Both sides agree that the conservancy had decided to buy land for a wildlife corridor in the Liberty Canyon area off the Ventura Freeway instead of Semler’s property.

Edmiston said the decision was based on the best use of limited funds.

McMurry, however, said the conservancy realized that the tract would be worth much less if Semler wasn’t allowed to build his subdivision. As a result, he said, the conservancy could buy it at a cheaper price.

“The motive here is simple: Sell it or we’ll kill” the project, McMurry said.

Yaroslavsky’s planning deputy, Ginny Kruger, denied any such scheme. She said that Yaroslavsky still hopes to purchase the land, perhaps with proceeds from one of the four proposed statewide park bond measures now under debate in Sacramento.