Antonovich on Development
The adage “an empty can makes the most noise” was never more evident than in the Dec. 27 story dealing with development in the Santa Monica Mountains. The story made a great deal of noise but totally ignored the vital facts.
The article failed to report that the 37 plan amendments resulted in only 814 additional homes--an average of about 80 homes a year. Hardly a building boom!
By way of comparison, Ventura County (which The Times lauds as an example of responsible development controls) recently approved the 3,050-unit Ahmanson Ranch development, which depends exclusively on Los Angeles County roads and infrastructure.
Many of the plan amendments dealt with issues other than changes to the land-use map, such as textual changes to clarify plan intent regarding protection of significant resources.
It was disappointing that your reporter did not acknowledge in his article the fact that I require developers to sit down with their neighbors to resolve their issues before any approvals are granted. The Cold Creek Property Owners Assn. received guarantees that certain portions of his property would remain largely undeveloped in the Dinovitz project. The Baldwins’ proposal was not approved until they reached an agreement with the Calabasas Park Homeowners Assn.
The article also confused the county’s density bonus and density transfer programs. State law provides for additional units for low- and moderate-income housing developments. And density transfer provisions exist to allow builders to relocate units into the least sensitive areas of a site.
I place a great deal of importance on having local issues resolved locally among all of the affected parties, having strongly supported the incorporation of Calabasas, Agoura Hills and Westlake Village for that reason, as well as sponsoring the formation of 14 town councils throughout my district. If a developer can reach an agreements with his neighbors, I will be supportive of those agreements.
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
Supervisor, Fifth District
