The other side of the story: controversial development gains support as it nears hearings.

Can a controversial proposed residential and recreational development actually win friends and gain increasing support from the immediate community during these days of environmental impact reports and highly emotional public hearings?

In the case of Canyon Oaks, the 257 acre property located in the 'Summit Valley' area of the Santa Monica Mountains in unincorporated Los Angeles County, the answer is yes. As the project, 14 years in planning, nears its March hearing date before the LA County Planning Commission, support for its approval has dramatically grown within the local community.

"If you were to only believe what's been in the papers or put forward by the groups in Topanga Canyon that characterize themselves as 'environmentalists,' you would not be getting the full picture of what's been happening with this issue in the community," says Paul Cook, a 17-year resident of the area whose home borders the proposed Canyon Oaks project.

"The opposition has played an important role, but enough's enough," Cook continues. "Their claims now are specious to the point of being hypocritical. I doubt any of them have really read the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)."

"You can present the realities; that it is a private property/land use issue, that the proposed development will generate an estimated $2.5 million annually in tax revenues to the County, that some 160 jobs will be created at the club and an additional 475 man years of construction related jobs," says Charlie McLaughlin, Canyon Oaks Project Manager. "But people really want to know how it will affect the texture and emotional quality of their lives."

"We've tried very hard to inform everyone of what is being proposed, how it will impact the community, and its benefits."

Developer seeks community input

"This is the first time that we're aware of a developer that has gone out directly to the community and asked what that community wanted," says McLaughlin. "Through this process, a great deal of previously uncommitted support has been identified."

"The Canyon Oaks people have been fairer than fair," Richard de Santis, a local resident whose 50-acre Quest Ranch borders the proposed development. "We have been thoroughly informed and invited to participate in the development process insofar as it relates to our community and our lives." De Santis is one of three active chairpeople on the Canyon Oaks Community Benefits Program.

Canyon Oaks officials have held some 45 community meetings since the outreach program started in August of 1992 (an average of 8 per month). 95 volunteers have come forward to establish the Community Benefits Program Committee, and an ad hoc committee has been formed that will have independent control over how a $500,000 Community Benefits Grant will be spent.

"In every respect -- thoughtfulness of the feelings of those who live closest to the proposed development, openness with the facts, and satisfying the established environmental requirements -- the Canyon Oaks people have been extremely forthright," says Ellis Stern, a Topanga Canyon resident who has taken an active supportive role.

Stern, who describes himself as a political "liberal" and "pro-environment," is a resident of Santa Maria Road and a member of that area's homeowners association.

"What's particularly interesting about the process is that those who actually live closest to it are generally the individuals most supportive," says Stern who owns property adjacent to the proposed gated community.

Problem solving -- new project proposal reflects community

Canyon Oaks was inherently controversial. Located in the Santa Monica Mountains, five miles east of Topanga Canyon, the property has undergone a series of ownership and plan changes and is regarded as one of the most contentious and controversial developments ever proposed in L.A. County.

Formerly known as Montevideo, the site had been originally submitted in 1978 as a multi-use development to include 224 homes, a hotel, shopping center, country club and equestrian center. In the early 1980s, the County Board of Supervisors agreed in concept on a plan that called for the building of 125 homes on the property.

Several owners -- and plans -- later, the project was scaled down and, after being rejected in April of 1991 by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, was resurrected by the Board for reconsideration. However, the Montevideo developer went bankrupt in the summer of 1991.

A management and development team was brought in 1991 at the request of the new property owner Sharon Lund, to drastically change the development plans. The active solicitation of community input was at the top of the team's agenda.

"We asked the community what they wanted changed and as a consequence the project was virtually replanned," says McLaughlin, "and a substantial amount of the input we received from the community is reflected in the new plan."

"This is a totally changed project," says Bob Halland, a 30 year veteran of designing projects in the 'mountain' areas of L.A. and Ventura County. "The aim was to do as little to the land as possible."

"We have been very sensitive to downstream issues and flood control," Halland continues. "In fact, in a study of flood control issues in the area conducted by Supervisor Edelman's office, it was determined that less volume of water and bulk would be released during a flood after the grading and development of Canyon Oaks than before."

"90% of the project will be open space," says Lee Newman, president of the Westlake Village-based landscape architectural firm that bears his name. "That's significantly more than the normal housing development provides."

Newman calls the proposed Canyon Oaks development "state of the art in its environmental orientation."

"In several cases, we're calling for the restoration of native vegetation in places where Eurasian and non-native grasses and plants have taken over. From every perspective, this is as good as the best minds in the business can make it."

"Canyon Oaks may be the most scrutinized and enlightened approach to development that has yet evolved," concluded Newman.

Project conforms to County's General Plan

The new plan is in conformance with the Los Angeles County General Plan, specifically in the areas of density, and both residential and golf course uses. The recently released environmental impact report concludes that the project, as proposed, is consistent with the Santa Monica Mountains area plan in all respects, including the use of the golf course in open space, and the L.A. County General Plan. Canyon Oaks will be the first private country club built in Los Angeles County in 25 years.

A spokesman for LA County Board of Supervisors Deane Dana (4th District) says their office looks on the current plan "very favorably."

"Regardless of the relative merits of both the opposing and supporting groups, the bottom line is whether it's a good plan or not," says Deputy Tim Riley of Supervisor Dana's office who indicated that Canyon Oaks must go to the L.A. County Planning Commission before it comes before the Board of Supervisors.

"Canyon Oaks looks like a very good plan," Riley continued. "The environmental impact has been carefully dealt with and the need for both housing and recreation in the area identified. That's to say nothing of the tax revenues and jobs the development will create."

The image changes -- local support comes forward

Though opposition groups, based mainly in Topanga Canyon, received positive media attention and participated in several of the community meetings, they never acknowledged the major changes that had been made in the plans and have refused to join the Community Benefits Committee, despite an invitation to do so.

At one time, the Canyon Oaks property owner offered to sell the parcel to the main opposition groups, TASC (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community) and TTC (Topanga Town Council), but those groups did not come forward with the money necessary to purchase the property. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy outright declined the opportunity to purchase the property.

"In the meantime we've continued a dialog with the community," McLaughlin reports. "We're finding that when you are able to present the facts of the process to the people, there is a greater receptivity that one could have imagined."

10,000 newsletters were mailed to residents in Topanga, Woodland Hills, Calabasas and other residents within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project. 380 responses came back, with 95 volunteers coming forward to organize the Community Benefits Committee.

"Because of the severe cuts in the county budget, services are being cut," McLaughlin says. "We heard time and time again that there just wasn't the money for cultural, recreational, or social enhancements."

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times quoted L.A. County Chief Administrative Richard Dixon as asking for a $425 million reduction in county services this year.

A $500,000 grant, originally offered by Canyon Oaks to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and turned down, was established. The Community Benefits Committee rolled up its sleeves.

After some deliberation, The Committee has whittled down a 20-plus item "wish list" to three conceptual possibilities; a performing arts center based on the famed Tanglewood and Wolf Trap models on the East Coast; a swimming pool/teen club; and a trails/parkland addition. The $500,000 grant has been written as a legal condition for the project and the funds will be advanced to the committee upon its approval.

The Committee is currently drafting a second newsletter which will ask for the vote of some 10,000 residents on which of the benefits they most desire.

"We've not only been able to exert a great deal of influence over what will be built here," says Paul Cook, one of the Canyon Oaks volunteers, "but we are also adding cultural and recreational assets to out community."

"It is ultimately the government experts -- those who review and assess the environmental considerations, density issues, what may or may not be permissible -- who should render a rational judgment on whether or not Canyon Oaks should be built, not ideologically motivated environmentalists or financially motivated developers," says Ellis Stern.

"Canyon Oaks has passed all of those hurdles. It seems only right that it get a fair hearing from all those concerned -- the community, the media, and the politicians."

Paul Cook, ironically enough, helped found the Topanga Town Council, the group that now so vehemently opposes Canyon Oaks. Cook also serves on the County Wide Citizen's Planning Council, 3rd District, having been appointed by Supervisor Ed Edelman. Edelman is expected to vote against the project.

"Many of the same people who oppose Canyon Oaks are putting tremendous strain on the infrastructure. There's so much bootlegged stuff in Topanga Canyon -- trailers, illegal shacks -- that the County Health Department says the septic system is overburdened by 5000%. There are so many other issues I could cite as well as pure unbridled misrepresentation by the opposition."

"This property is going to be developed some day, whether now or in the future. Why not work with the developers and extract all the good we can out of the process," Cook asks.

Kirk Mustard is a freelance writer.

Among the changes affected by community input:

* The establishment of architectural guidelines that were written into the CCRs.

* The proposed 97 lots take a much less visible orientation from the major thoroughfare, Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

* A new grading plan reducing grading by an estimated 27%.

* Indigenous revegetation, drought resistant planting, oak tree preservation or relocation and other environmentally enlightened landscaping.

* To provide a secondary water source for Topanga Canyon, improve flood control measures, and build a sewage treatment plant -- all specific requests from residents.