Revisiting Calabasas Case
I would like to offer additional perspective regarding the ruling by Judge Robert O’Brien overturning approval by the new city of Calabasas of 250 homes proposed by Micor Ventures.
Calabasas incorporated because local citizens were unhappy with the excessive and destructive pattern of development that had been approved in their area by Los Angeles County.
Yet, the first major land-use decision made by Calabasas was to approve a project that is three times the density allowed under the Los Angeles County Area Plan.
Councilwoman Lesley Devine complained that with the court ruling, “the right of a new jurisdiction to control its own destiny has just been removed.â€
Using Micor as a model, the destiny of Calabasas would include significant upzoning, filling of pristine canyons, significant landform alteration, destruction of critical wildlife habitat linkages between public lands, elimination of threatened plant communities, and creation of enormous sediment and runoff lands within the Malibu Creek watershed.
A new city controls its destiny by developing a General Plan: Calabasas had not even begun this process before it approved the Micor project.
The Micor land comprises 10% of the land area of Calabasas.
Surely this significant a portion of the city should be a part of the General Plan process with associated citizen input and review.
Judge O’Brien did not remove control from the city of Calabasas but simply established interim standards.
Apparently Calabasas plans to appeal. I hope the citizens of Calabasas ask some hard questions of their City Council.
MARTHA S. WITTER
Topanga
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
