Some business owners who were forced to move criticized State Parks officials’ plans to operate a wine tasting business on the parkland, saying they are being discriminatory.
By Paul Sisolak / Special to The Malibu Times
Area residents commended parks officials last week for having transparency on the project to redesign Topanga State Park, but they still questioned several details of a proposed makeover to the park’s general plan at a public meeting June 14 in Pacific Palisades.
The two-hour meeting, at Temescal Canyon Park’s Stewart Hall, drew about 65 people and was the third meeting in three years to give updates on a project that could see the restoration of 1,625 acres of acquired land located in Lower Topanga, in the 11,525-acre park. No cost has been fixed to the plan yet.
The California Department of State Parks’ purchase of the Lower Topanga land in 2001 from LAACO, Ltd. caused the ensuing controversy of evictions of longtime residents, squatters and local businesses from the land, which entangled the parks department in costly legal battles and relocation fees for several years. Since the last tenant was evicted, the land has stood vacant, with remnants of once operating businesses such as the Topanga Ranch Motel and other structures. Until a general plan for the park is created, no permanent structures can be built.
In a presentation-only format last week, Barney Matsumoto, a planning coordinator with State Parks, revealed a more solidified preferred plan and a “planning matrix” of environmental, aesthetic and cultural improvements slated for several zones marked across the entire Topanga State Park land. Those sections-located near Will Rogers State Park, Temescal Canyon, Trippet Ranch, Los Liones, Reseda and Lower Topanga near Pacific Coast Highway-are set to include a series of hiking trails, wildlife and lagoon preservation measures, and other resources, which may include visitor concessions.
It has been a process that has left many people in the region in a divide over how well the public input process works.
“I think they’ve done a really great job of integrating public comments,” said Jim Hasenauer of Woodland Hills. “The rules are made by the people who show up.”
Others were not so happy with the informational meeting, feeling left in the dark over proposals that came as a surprise. Taylor Loden, a Culver City resident, took exception with parks and recreation officials’ talk of renaming the park’s Los Liones section.
“You’d want there to be more specifics than generalities,” Loden said. “‘We’re thinking of renaming it, but we’re not going to tell you now.’”
Mimi Morton, a Malibu-based real estate dealer, has decried the State Parks’ definition of a “concession,” in response to their plan to start up a wine tasting facility in the park’s Lower Topanga zone.
Morton was one business owner, along with approximately 60 private homeowners and other businesses once located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Topanga Canyon Boulevard, who was forced to move.
“They didn’t want my kind of business there,” she said. “I had to move my office up to the center of Malibu. I lost a lot of business because of that. It never made any sense to move businesses to begin with.”
Since then, Morton has voiced opposition to allowing a winery on park property. But Lynette Brody, superintendent for the Topanga general plan project, said the offer for wine tasting would be part of a two-year pilot program exploring what types of concessions are best for the park. Alcohol, she noted, is currently allowed on park property and sold near campsites.
Brody said concessionary improvements are just a small part to the new general plan, a major overhaul to its design since 1977.
“They’re [the visitors] going to have a really nice open wildland space,” she said. “There’ll be concession opportunities over Lower Topanga, and a really nice education area showcasing the cultural and natural areas to the park.”
Brody also emphasized that businesses and homeowners who fled the area were not forced or ejected, and were compensated by officials.
“Those people were paid and relocated,” she said.
Other businesses remain at the intersection, but are doubtful as to their future.
“We’re the ones that are going to get wiped out by the deal,” said the owner of the Malibu Feed Bin, who declined to give his name.
While officials won’t reveal how much money changed hands between the parties for the settlement (Morton says she was paid $10,000), Brody said it was necessary because wildlife preservation was a major priority in securing the open space at Topanga, specifically, the 258 steelhead trout that swim in waters there, she said.
“We knew we needed to make sure the watershed was the most valuable portion of it,” she said.
The first public meeting for the proposed project that took place in 2009, and the second in July of last year, turned contentious when the proceedings were opened for comment. Following last week’s meeting, Matsumoto said an Environmental Impact Report on the project should be online soon, and open for a 45-day public comment review.
The EIR, which details all of the positive and negative effects the proposal may have on several cultural and environmental resources, will be online at www.parks.ca.gov.