Officials and local residents say the proposed resort, which would be located across from the just-purchased visitor center from Soka University, would cause gridlock on park trails and canyon roads, and would overtax the park’s resources.
By Hans Laetz/Special to The Malibu Times
State and federal parks officials criticized a proposed resort in the heart of the Santa Monica Mountains as too dense and too big to be placed next to the just-purchased visitor center and gateway to the region’s scenic parkland.
The parks agencies said the proposed Malibu Valley Inn and Spa would overshadow and overwhelm the open fields and grassy hills of the former Soka University property. Now referred to by its historic Gillette Ranch name, those 588 acres were purchased this week to become the visitor center and park headquarters for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Malibu Creek State Park.
Parks officials testified before the Calabasas Planning Commission Thursday that a line of two-story, timeshare units would be a wall of commercial density just across a tree-lined Mulholland Highway from the park.
At issue is a 2,000-page Environmental Impact Report for the proposed inn, which includes a conference center, signature restaurant, horse arena, day spa, winery and timeshare resort. It would be built on the north side of Mulholland Highway east of the Malibu Canyon-Los Virgenes Road signal.
Owner Brian Budreau asked the City of Calabasas to annex his land and change the zoning from 81 houses to the commercial categories necessary for the inn and spa. Neighbors in the county Monte Nido and Cold Canyon areas say the zoning change is contrary to the just-adopted Los Angeles County North Area Plan and would never be approved by the board of supervisors if it were left unincorporated.
Most residents of the tranquil and largely undeveloped canyons in the area oppose the project. But other horse enthusiasts, most of them who do not live close to the site, praised the inn, spa and equestrian center as providing much-needed visitor services in the center of the area’s largest new park system.
But parks officials warned that the large number of inn guests would cause horse gridlock on park trails and overtax park resources for the hotel’s benefit.
“This would result in the increased use of park trails by novice riders and cause an increase in rescues and other maintenance costs,” said California State Parks ecologist Suzanne Goode.
She said the proximity of the resort to the park makes it “an offsite concession using state park resources, entitling the state parks system to share in revenues” generated by the resort.
Similar criticism came from the National Park Service, which sent an outdoor recreation planner to voice concerns about the project’s scope and size.
“The EIR needs to evaluate the use of the Gillette Ranch as a visitor center for the National Recreation Area,” which it does not presently consider, said National Park Service planner Melanie Beck.
The city of Malibu has not taken a stand on the proposed resort. But local residents have zeroed in on traffic estimates in the EIR that predict 1,900 car trips to be added to Malibu Canyon-Los Virgenes Road. Malibu resident Paul Grisanti said, ” … the conference center alone will be used for several different events per day, and the traffic increase that is contemplated here is woefully understated.”
Project supporters generally gave more distant addresses during the public hearing, and emphasized the project’s unique ability to serve visitors in the park setting. Agoura Hills resident Rosie Lavco said she had just moved to the area and “I miss the easy access to fine entertainment and recreational establishments without driving forever in traffic.”
Greg Carson of Ventura praised the economic development the inn would generate. “I do not think we can have a viable environment if we don’t have economic development,” he said. “This project gives us both. It would be a ‘green’ project that will be good for the environment.”
But opponents outnumbered proponents by about a 2-1 margin during the four-hour long session. Among other objections cited were: grading would have to occur in much larger quantities than allowed by the county; buildings would be placed on ridge lines; 71 mature oak trees would have to be removed; parking for horse trailers would be on Mulholland Highway; night lighting would disturb the dark rural skies; 92 percent of the resort land would be commercial use; and the hotel would leapfrog urban sprawl into a wild area.
“It is called a horse resort but it is a much bigger and more dense project than that,” said Mulholland Highway resident Cynthia Maxwell. “If anything, it’s a wolf in equine clothing.”
Written public comments are being taken by Calabasas until April 25, then the developer must address each proven concern and specify corrective steps that would be taken to mitigate them.
If the Calabasas Planning Commission and the City Council approve the EIR, then those agencies will hold new public hearings on the project itself. And if the rezoning request is approved by the Calabasas Planning Commission and the City Council, it goes to the Local Area Formation Commission, which must approve the annexation.
Even though the site is currently in unincorporated Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors does not have a say in the matter.