Plan for 272 Homes in Hills Turned Down : * Development: Planning Commission members cite threat of fire and earthquake in rejecting the La Vina housing proposal.

By JAMES RAINEY

Nov. 21, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

In a startling setback for a project more than four years in the making, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday rejected a developer’s proposal to build 272 homes in the oak- and brush-covered foothills of Altadena.

The county planning group rejected detailed plans for the La Vina housing project by a 3-2 vote at the end of a raucous 2 1/2-hour hearing.

The majority of commissioners called for a reduction in the size of the project, saying they were concerned about the threat of earthquakes, brush fires and the destruction of wooded hillsides that lie largely within the Angeles National Forest.

A spokesman for the developers, Southwest Diversified and Cantwell-Anderson, pledged immediately to appeal the decision to the County Board of Supervisors. “It’s been four years, and we didn’t come this far just to give in,” Andrew Oliver, the project manager, told the commission.

The future of the development is further clouded by an opposition lawsuit pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit, filed by a homeowners’ group, charges the developer with preparing an inadequate environmental review for construction on the property, 220 acres at the north end of Lincoln Avenue.

The La Vina project has sharply divided residents in unincorporated Altadena. Many people there have said the construction, which would include the movement of 1.5 million cubic yards of earth, would irreparably harm a serene foothill neighborhood popular among hikers and horseback riders.

Others have praised the project as an economic shot in the arm for a depressed community--particularly because of a program in which the developer has promised to employ local workers and contractors.

The strong emotions apparently carried over to the commission itself, as Chairwoman Sadie Clark and Commissioner Richard Wulliger shouted angrily at each other at the climax of Wednesday’s hearing. The argument ended when Clark abruptly demanded a recess and then called Wulliger a “nitwit.” (She later apologized.)

Wednesday’s vote shocked both sides.

“I’m very pleasantly surprised. It gives me a little faith in the system,” said a beaming Adolfo Miralles, who heads the community group opposing the plan. But, noting the upcoming appeal and court case, he added: “We are very optimistic, but at the same time the challenge is still ahead of us.”

Tim Cantwell, one of the project’s principal developers, said the commissioners never should have reopened the issue of how many homes should be built. “The density issue is not even on the table,” Cantwell said. He said he would take the project, unchanged, to the Board of Supervisors.

Plans call for homes in a gated community to sell for $350,000 to $650,000. Cantwell said any reduction in the number of homes would force up the price. “The homes are as expensive as they can get right now,” Cantwell said. “If we had to reduce the number, what that would do is make the project financially unfeasible.”

At the start of the day, opponents conceded that they had hoped, at best, for a delay in Wednesday’s vote pending the court’s review of the La Vina project’s environmental documents.

But a change in the composition of the Planning Commission--there are three new members since the scope of the project was approved in 1989--soon made it clear that all issues about the long-contested project were on the table.

“The figure of 272 (homes) is not set in stone,” said Wulliger, who was appointed to the commission last year by Supervisor Ed Edelman. “It’s not an all-or-none proposition. We don’t have to approve 272 or zero.”

Wulliger said he favored fewer homes because clearing many of the planned lots would cause “severe environmental degradation.” He also said he was concerned that one of two access roads could be cut off during a brush fire. “This could become a firetrap, a deathtrap,” he said.

Commissioner Rene Santiago, appointed this year by Supervisor Gloria Molina, added that he did not like to see so many homes being built on private land within the boundaries of the National Forest. “We are talking about a regional and maybe even a national resource,” Santiago said. “I do have a problem with that kind of density there.”

The two commissioners were joined in rejecting the project by Commissioner J. Paul Robinson, an appointee of Supervisor Deane Dana. Robinson, an architect and engineer, said he was troubled by the proposed construction of homes near the Sierra Madre earthquake fault, which crosses the La Vina property. He suggested that as many as 70 homes should be removed from the plan for greater fire and earthquake safety.

But Chairwoman Clark and Commissioner Patricia Russell--appointed, respectively, by Supervisors Kenneth Hahn and Mike Antonovich--said they had relied on staff analyses, which showed the project would be safe and within the framework approved by the Board of Supervisors two years ago.

They pointed to the developer’s testimony that security from fire in the area would actually be heightened because a 2.5-million water tank would be built next to the project, and a new access road would be constructed. A county Fire Department official agreed with that assessment.

A geologist for the developer said homes in the projected area would be protected by setting them back at least 25 feet from the earthquake fault; school buildings would have a minimum 150-foot setback.

But a California Institute of Technology engineering professor, speaking for the opponents, said the fault could create instability throughout the proposed project area.

Supporters of the project--many of them attracted by the proposed jobs program and wearing pink “Yes! La Vina” buttons--groaned and hissed at the commissioners’ decision. The project’s opponents--outfitted in green ribbons--cheered.

Shirley Adams, who heads the Pasadena-Foothill branch of the Los Angeles Urban League, said she was disappointed by the vote.

The developer “has done an excellent job of making the community a partner in this development, particularly in terms of jobs and employment opportunity,” Adams said. “We at the Urban League look at this as a temporary setback and feel this project will still go forward.”