Tarzana Canyon to Join State Park System : Home Builder Donates 440 Acres to Conservancy

A state parks agency has agreed to accept 440 acres of a scenic canyon in the hills above Tarzana from a developer preparing to build a tract of expensive homes along a southerly extension of Reseda Boulevard.

The gift of land in Caballero Canyon is one condition imposed by the city on the developer of the 178-home Mulholland Park subdivision. Another--extending Reseda and paving a small stretch of Mulholland Drive--is worrying some neighbors and environmentalists.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy voted earlier this week to accept the parkland gift, which will increase that agency’s holdings near the Mulholland crest to more than 800 acres.

The state agency already owns a 382-acre tract to the west of the Caballero Canyon property, which is expected to be deeded to the conservancy this summer. With the addition, state holdings in the area--including the 9,000-acre Topanga and Will Rogers state parks--will form about a 10,000-acre swath of parkland from the San Fernando Valley to Malibu and Pacific Palisades.

But a few critics have complained that the road work required for the development will degrade the newest tract to be acquired by the state. They also say it could be the beginning of a road for trash trucks to proposed landfill sites in Sullivan and Rustic canyons south of Mulholland. The sites are owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

Condition Questioned

“I’m dying to have those 440 acres,” said Jill Swift, a Tarzana resident and Sierra Club member who leads hikes in the area. “It’s just . . . what condition it will be in by the time we get it?

“It’s still beef, but instead of getting a filet, you’re getting ground beef,” she said.

Conservancy officials and an aide to City Councilman Marvin Braude, who represents the area, said the road work will not be a foot in the door for landfill development. Braude opposes establishing dumps in the Santa Monica Mountains, and the conservancy is trying to buy Rustic and Sullivan canyons from the sanitation districts.

But Joe Edmiston, executive director of the conservancy, said he will ask city officials to allow narrower paved widths on Reseda and to vacate part of the city’s right of way within state property. This would reduce the chance that a road wide enough to accommodate trash trucks could be built, he said.

Harlan Lee & Associates, a Marina del Rey developer that is in the process of acquiring the Mulholland Park tract from Florida-based Avatar Properties, will consider scaling back the road work if area homeowners desire and city officials approve, said Michael Dieden, a partner with Harlan Lee.

1 1/2-Mile Extension

Reseda now ends at Braemar Country Club. Under conditions imposed by the city when the 125-acre subdivision was approved years ago, the developer is to extend Reseda 1 1/2 miles to Mulholland to create a second exit for residents, in case of fire or other emergency. The Reseda extension is to be 44 feet wide through the Mulholland Park development and 30 feet wide across state park property the rest of the way to Mulholland Drive.

The developer is also required to spend about $250,000 on paving Mulholland to a width of 30 feet both east and west of the Reseda intersection. The road is unpaved for about 10 miles between Encino Hills Drive above Encino to Canoga Avenue in Woodland Hills. Gil Bechtel, a consulting engineer for Harlan Lee, said no more than a few hundred feet could be paved for that amount of money.

The development was approved by the city in 1981, with the condition that the Caballero tract be given to the conservancy. But the project was delayed, in part because of opposition to the Corbin water tank that was finally built along Mulholland partly for fire protection.

Contending that the development never received proper environmental review, Swift and other opponents urged the conservancy earlier this week to refuse the gift of land. But the agency’s board voted Tuesday to accept it, saying that refusing the land would not cause the project to be reviewed all over again by the city.

No Authority

Edmiston said the conservancy had no authority to overturn a city land-use decision, only an opportunity to obtain public parkland.

Had the conservancy refused the land, the developer could have complied with city requirements by deeding it to the homeowner association, which would fence it off, Edmiston maintained.

As it is, “there will be the opportunity to drive up to the end of Reseda . . . walk under sycamore trees and see a very pleasant canyon that, part of the year at least, has a running stream through it,” he said.

“That land will be publicly usable, as opposed to . . . private open space.”