A San Francisco-based land conservancy has exercised its option to purchase a lower Topanga property that spans Topanga Canyon north of Pacific Coast Highway, possibly uprooting local businesses and leaving area residents without homes.

LAACO, Ltd., of Los Angeles, which also owns the Los Angeles Athletic Club, California Yacht Club and Storage West, announced last week that the American Land Conservancy (ALC) would exercise its option to buy the land.

The ALC in turn plans to transfer the land to the state of California for use as a state park, or other public purposes, according to a press release.

Rumors have been brewing for years that the

1,659-acre parcel was up for sale, but landmark businesses, such as the Reel Inn restaurant, Wylies Bait and Tackle Shop and the Feed Bin, which have occupied the area for decades, as well as residents, have been kept in the dark about imminent future plans for the property.

“We’ll see what happens,” said Richard Jo, who bought the Topanga Ranch Market 15 months ago.

Generally, the business owners have opted to take the wait-and- see approach to such news, having been through this before when LAACO tried to sell the property to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The deal did not go through because the conservancy could not come up with enough funds.

The land has been appraised for $43 million, and earlier this year Gov. Gray Davis designated $40 million toward its purchase, pending state approval of the purchase price.

The businesses and tenants of 50 rental units nearby hope to stay but are aware that their month-to-month leases leave open the possibility of eviction. Residents have hired attorney Frank Angel to find out what their rights are and possibly fight eviction.

They have also organized and created the Lower Topanga Conservancy. Under this title they hope to make a proposal to buy the 50-acre lot where the rental units exist.

“We’re just floating this idea because we think this community is worth saving,” said Bernt Capra, a longtime resident of the area.

Under the Topanga conservancy proposal, state parks could later buy the lot. “We know this eventually will all be public land,” said Capra, “but for the next 25 years to 30 years we can be the owners and fix up our properties.”

The proposed arrangement does not include the Topanga/PCH businesses, as the land on which they sit is far more valuable.

Kim Ruge, who has been the general manager for the Reel Inn for 15 years, said the restaurant would continue to do business until the owners are told to move.

“Change happens and change is good, but sometimes it affects people in ways they don’t want it to,” said Ruge.

“We all live close by and we’re like a family,” said Ruge of employees of the Reel Inn, adding that workers and families who live in the homes nearby would be broken up if they had to move.

Additionally, not only will employees lose jobs, but people who live at the Ranch Motel, another unique landmark in the area and which provides affordable housing for people who could not live here without it, would also lose their homes.

It’s still too early to tell, said July Benson, spokesperson for LAACO, when asked what will happen to the tenants who occupy the land.

“Though they [LACCO] marked a huge step forward with the option, it also marks the beginning of a long transfer process,” she said.

The transaction is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Who will move the businesses and tenants still needs to be determined, said Benson, emphasizing that whatever happens, LAACO wants to stress that tenants will be compensated and relocated as required by state law.

The Topanga conservancy group said the ALC will save money if the group is allowed to buy the residential lot, because it would not have to pay for relocation costs.

“We’re waiting to see what happens with the tenants,” said Roy Stern, director of public relations for the state parks. “We are not interested in acquiring the land until there is a fair and equitable solution for tenants.

“We have no desire to have the land with the tenants, we’re all waiting to see what happens next with the ALC and LACCO.”

Harriett Burgess, ALC director, indicated that state parks officials have not told her what they will do.

As for the possibility of the ALC keeping part of the land for other purposes, Burgess said, “Everything is uncertain at this point.”

Malibu residents expressed their growing concerns about the Civic Center Draft Guidelines at Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting.

Two weeks ago, the guidelines faced strong opposition from a group of citizens who thought them premature and poorly drafted. Residents reiterated their concerns about the guidelines’ concepts in front of the commission. The speakers expressed opinions on the proposed water treatment solutions, increased development allow-ances, street realignment and creating a cul-de-sac on Civic Center Way.

While Drew Purvis, the city’s senior planning director, stated that the guidelines are intended to propose integrated themes and plans for infrastructures so that developers who own the properties can work in unison, the general public had doubts.

Marshall Thompson, president of the Malibu Park Homeowners’ Association, brought up a poignant point. “As the Civic Center goes, so goes the rest of Malibu,” he said.

There has to be a justification for this build-out, he said, and it will not come from beachgoers who do not spend a lot of money in Malibu. Rather, it will encourage zoning changes that will allow subdivisions and more residential build-out, said Thompson.

Resident Ann Hoffman said the guidelines give developers new rights by allowing a package sewage-treatment plant instead of letting developers deal with their own septic systems, which would limit the size of development.

“It matters to me because the treatment plant would allow for a bigger commercial development,” she said.

Don Schmitz, representing Malibu Ranch La Paz property owners, said the owners of two key parcels in the Civic Center area, who have had applications before the city since last year, are concerned about the original language for the treatment plant.

Additionally, property owners do not like the restrictions placed on them by the city’s guidelines, including the 50- to 100-foot linear wetland path and setback guidelines, which they are providing in their plans anyway, he said.

Another speaker was troubled by the mixed messages sent by the city on this matter. “Even though they say the guidelines don’t have legal effect, they do,” said Jay Liebig. “Are we going to permit a million and a half square feet of development in the Civic Center?”

Steve Uhring, of the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy, said this issue deserves more community input. He thought the plans were badly drafted, and that in case of a disaster, people will not be able to evacuate if the Civic Center is redesigned as the guidelines indicate.

“A significant number of people want the Civic Center to remain open,” said Uhring. The group he represents has drafted its own Civic Center guidelines. He suggested that alternatives be presented to the public as well.

Georgianna McBurney implored the commission to schedule three neighborhood meetings, stating that Councilmember Sharon Barovsky was in support of that idea.

“It’s imperative that the city have a water map of the Civic Center,” she said, “to see how the area can deal with additional treated water and drainage.”

“Where will the water go?” she added.

Chair Ed Lipnick explained at the beginning of the commission’s discussion of the matter that it is not the function of the commission to approve or disapprove the guidelines.

The commission was directed by the City Council to review the draft guidelines and present its opinion on the draft.

“If we don’t adopt the guidelines, we’re going to look worse than Calabasas, we’ll look like Ventura Boulevard,” said Lipnick.

“I think some people might be missing the point,” said Barry Hogan, planning director. “This set of guidelines presents an opportunity to present a single vision.”

“I’m in favor of common planning as opposed to no planning,” said David Fox, commissioner.

But before it can decide on anything, the commission wants more time to reflect on the comments and material. After another lengthy debate, the commission adjourned at a late hour. The commission plans to revisit the guidelines on April 2, without further public comment for the moment.

New office rules eases burdens for home businesses

By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer

The Planning Comm-ission, at Monday night’s meeting, unanimously adopted a new Home Occupation Zoning Text Amendment that will make it easier for home-based businesses to operate in Malibu.

During the past year, the current home office ordinance was under fire because it was thought to be too restrictive by residents who organized and requested that the rules be relaxed.

According to city staff, the amendments to the home occupation section of the code have been specifically tailored to the unique needs of Malibu. The most significant portion of the amendment is the allowance of workers and clients in home occupation settings, according to a staff report.

With the new rules, educational businesses, like those who give piano lessons or swimming lessons, will be allowed to have up to six students onsite at one time and home-based offices or studios will be allowed to have up to three clients and three employees at once.

At one point during the meeting, the commission was concerned about opening a Pandora’s box-making room for abuses of the ordinance, but objections were outweighed by the benefits of the amendments overall.

Ann Hoffman, a proponent of the new amendment, said it would help reduce code enforcement cases. It will save time for everyone, including city staff, she said.

But not everyone agreed that the change was beneficial. Malibu resident Frank Basso opposed the amendment because he thought the relaxed rules could have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods.

“How can it be enforced?” he asked. “Let’s do some planning and take care of the people who want to live in their houses and have their kids play on the street. It’s too liberal.”

Efraim Fader spoke on behalf of the Malibu Township Council. He referred the commission to a 1997 proposal that had a more detailed ordinance. Fader started calculating what the new rules could mean for residential neighborhoods. Six students in five classes a day can equal 60 car trips a day, he said.

“And consider these people using the bathroom,” said Fader, referring to over-usage of septic systems.

Commissioner Ted Vaill, who served on the code enforcement taskforce, agreed that the MTC’s thoughts made sense. Staff did not address the multiple classes per day issue, he said.

But after debating in detail, and making a few changes in the amendments’ wording, the commission approved the home occupation amendments unanimously.

In other matters, the commission reviewed a zoning text amendment that would allow business owners to put their logos inside the signs in a shopping mall.

“The reason we proposed this amendment,” said commission chair Ed Lipnick,” is because we felt that it was a waste of the commission’s time to have applicants go through a variance system and we approve the signs 98 percent of the time.”

But some public speakers disagreed with the amendment.

“This is a roll-over-and-die kind of amendment,” said Jay Liebig, a Malibu resident, in opposition to the amendment.

After hearing comments, Commissioner Richard Carrigan apologized for suggesting that the commission proposed the amendments and he successfully retracted the proposal, with com-

missioners Ted Vaill and Andrew Stern concurring that it may be too liberal.

“We should control and prevent worst-case scenarios and I am reversing the position I had on June 19, 2000,” said Carrigan.

The motion failed after Lipnick motioned to approve the amendment and Commissioner David Fox seconded it, but Vaill, Stern and Carrigan voted against it.