COMMENTARY : La Vina Plan Balances Housing, Parkland

The County Board of Supervisors is expected to make a final decision today on the proposal of Southwest Diversified/Cantwell Anderson to build more than 200 homes on a site in northwest Altadena, much of it within the Angeles National Forest. On Oct. 4, The Times published a commentary in opposition by David Czamanske, vice chair of the Pasadena group of the Sierra Club. I live just 600 yards south of the entrance to the proposed La Vina housing development, and I am a strong supporter of the project, which has been frustrated in its approval by all kinds of legal maneuvers from opponents whose goal is no development of the property at all.

The majority of the people who oppose this project are residents of the affluent east side of Altadena who see the La Vina project as a precedent for other developments.

The precedent that will be set by the La Vina development is the balance it will create with the preservation of a sensitive environmental resource (Millard Canyon) while addressing some of the socioeconomic needs of the community immediately around the property.

The project has set aside 110 of the most pristine acres of the land to be used by the community as open space, while confining the development to the area that was previously vineyards or the land occupied by the La Vina Sanitorium.

The complete 220 acres is private property and has always been private property long before the national forest boundary was created. The creation of this boundary in no way restricts the rights of the property owner, and that has not been made clear by the opponents of the project.

While none of this land has ever been open to the community as open space, the developers at their cost will be dedicating half of the land to the community for the first time to be used for recreational purposes. This includes hiking and equestrian trails and a trail-head at Loma Alta Park.

Most people who have reviewed the La Vina plan, including its environmental sensitivity and community concerns, believe this project to be one of the best balanced developments in the history of the County of Los Angeles.

Opponents claim that the U.S. Forest Service rejected the La Vina land as open space because of their inability to manage it. They fail to point out that the Forest Service desired to obtain the upper portion of the property, which lies well into the functioning portion of the national forest but rejected the lower portion because of its proximity to existing residential communities.

Opponents of the project have received communication from the U.S. Forest Service stating that it does not have authority or jurisdiction to set guidelines for private property within the boundaries of the national forest.

The policy of the Forest Service could not have been made clearer than in a letter to Rep. Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles) of October, 1991, from the assistant secretary of natural resources and environment, who stated: “The Forest Service recognizes and respects the adjacent and intermingled privately owned properties. . . . We believe in and practice a good neighbor policy recognizing the right of property owners to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. The Forest Service does not regulate private property use.”

The opponents, however, for public theater have chosen to ignore Forest Service policy and instead focus on the sensitivity to Forest Service land established in the county General Plan, which they distort. They limit their public comments to one line which says: “Non-urban residential development within the national forest should be limited to one dwelling unit per 5 acres.”

The next line of the General Plan states, “Except in areas where the property is contiguous with an existing developed community. Then it may be developed at a lower density compatible with the surrounding community.” The La Vina development is less dense than any community in all of Altadena.

At no cost to the community, the La Vina development will give: 110 acres to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for open space, the rights to the water in Millard Canyon, nearly six acres of land to Loma Alta Park, a new water system for fire protection, improvements to the Loma Alta debris basin, hiking trails, equestrian trails, improved streets and traffic signals, a jobs training and business development program, $150,000 to the Altadena Town Hall, and additions to the tax base in excess of $150 million.

I believe this is balance and addresses the needs of the broader community. Those who oppose believe that all of the land should be set aside for a few. There is no balance in that position.