Santa Monicas Searching for Balance

Rugged, beautiful and fragile, the Santa Monica Mountains symbolize the powerful tug of war so pervasive to Southern California.

On one side, environmentalists view this last wild space in the Los Angeles area as the final stand against the voracious development in the region. On the other, developers and property owners view the open land as prime residential sites--for both large estates and vast suburban tracts.

With those divergent interests at stake, a proposed growth blueprint for a 32-square-mile swath of land would tighten suburban sprawl and protect water resources, while upholding private property rights.

Under the Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan, a third fewer homes can be built, allowing for about 3,700 housing units instead of the 5,400 allowed under the existing plan.

But the proposal has gone through several revisions, including a controversial change two months ago that increased dwelling density on eight mountainous properties.

Revisions have now added up to 228 more houses overall to the plan.

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is expected to approve the North Area Plan--the land policy for unincorporated areas--as well as a final environmental report for the broader Ventura Freeway Corridor, which includes the cities of Hidden Hills, Westlake Village, Agoura Hills and Calabasas. Both the plan and the report then go to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for final action.

What separates the North Area Plan from its predecessor is its unswerving goal to “let the land dictate the type and intensity of use,” it states.

That’s a far cry from the last decade, where the Ventura Freeway Corridor’s growth exploded at four times the pace of the overall county.

The four cities, the county, two municipal agencies and the National Park Service banded together in 1993 to forge the mountains North Area Plan, addressing increasing traffic, impacts to water and wildlife and destruction of ridgelines and mountains.

“For years, developers would go downtown to the county offices and by the time the deal came to the Planning Commission, it was set,” said Dave Brown, a member of the Calabasas Planning Commission and former chairman of the advisory committee for the North Area Plan. “The idea that you can chop up an area into little pieces, we got tired of that.”

Residents had also tired of deep-pocketed developers who held sway with county supervisors, who in turn held the power to amend growth plans and allow more houses to be built. Other developers were able to construct more homes by also counting the land under public streets--a tactic disclosed by a Times analysis last year.

Plan Could Simplify Land-Use Process

In several ways, the new plan addresses many of those concerns:

* It’s simpler, reducing 12 land-use categories laid out in a vision-blurring, topographical-style map to eight classifications. Where the old plan was difficult to decipher, the new plan is easier to read.

* It’s more precise about density. For urban residential parcels, it clearly states that streets and private easements can’t be counted in the net area. However, non-urban areas, with one dwelling or less per acre, can still count streets and easements.

* It thinks big. After a dozen hearings and much public input, the plan attempts to break down jurisdictional friction among cities, the county and agencies. It recognizes that a project just outside Agoura Hills can and does affect the nearby city. Water sources, trails, wildlife corridors and roadways are viewed as shared resources by county and incorporated areas, with the need to coordinate them as a region.

As a land-use blueprint, the North Area Plan’s guidelines on density take precedence over local zoning. It sets average density for the land.

For example, a 100-acre parcel with an N-20 classification allows one dwelling for each 20 acres, for a maximum of five dwellings that can be built.

Zoning, however, determines the lot size, whether houses sit on typical suburban lots or estate-size ranchettes with room for horses.

The North Area Plan is unprecedented in its oversight of water issues, such as how runoff can ultimately taint the ocean, said county Planning Commissioner Esther Feldman.

But the development pressures haven’t gone away. Many property owners have been lobbying relentlessly for months, Feldman said.

In June, the commission approved increased density for eight parcels, some of them hundreds of acres in size.

The changes meant that about one-third of the land designated for one house for every 20 acres now would allow one house per 10 acres.

One of the most controversial revisions--about 160 acres sandwiched between the Ventura Freeway and the Calabasas Landfill--angered local homeowners in the adjacent Saratoga Hills tract. Warner Financial of Agoura Hills has proposed a housing development for the land.

Half of the property was increased in density so that 114 houses--instead of a maximum of 22--could be built.

Commissioner Cheryl Vargo, who initiated the June density changes, declined to comment on the Warner Financial project.

“There won’t be a serious increase of density,” she said of other changes to the plan. “Frankly, who knows if they will get developed?”

Brown said the density changes, from one house for every 20 acres to one per 10 acres, may seem slight.

“But one [house per] 20 allows a lot more watershed protection. These are areas that are difficult to build on and to get access to, and need an enormous amount of grading.”

Density Upgrades a Topic of Debate

The June density upgrades may affect private property adjacent to national parkland, including a rocky peak that towers above the Peter Strauss Ranch and hilly ridgelines above Paramount Ranch. Hundreds of acres next to Malibu Creek State Park are also changed.

Feldman said the revisions were a great loss to the mountains plan.

“It will be terribly detrimental to have that stay in the future,” she said. “I’m confident the Board of Supervisors will have the wisdom and judgment to fix that.”