On behalf of the American Land Conservancy I would like to respond to some issues raised in your article of 9 May (“Lower Topanga tenants told to go”).

ALC is a non-profit organization whose mission is the preservation of land and water throughout the United States. ALC does not seek to own land. Rather, its strategy is to option environmentally sensitive lands that public agencies wish to acquire, arrange appraisals, surveys, toxic assessments, and the other pre-sale requirements and then transfer the land to local, state or federal agencies for conservation. We specialize in complex and difficult transactions. In ten years of operation we have closed projects around the nation totaling over 100,000 acres, including 43 projects in California totaling nearly 9,000 acres.

ALC’s Board of Directors and Counselors includes such prominent conservationists as Martin Litton, Brock Evans, Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey, Jr., and Stewart Udall among others. The late David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club was a long time member of ALC’s Board of Counselors.

It should come as little surprise to most tenants and neighbors of the Topanga property that ALC and LAACO are attempting to transfer this magnificent land to public ownership for the benefit of future generations. LAACO has investigated this option since the mid 70’s and nearly completed a sale through ALC in 1990.

The American Land Conservancy has not ordered any tenants to leave the lower Topanga Canyon property. We have hired a well-respected consultant, Pacific Relocation Consultants, to develop a relocation plan for all tenants in accordance with state law. This plan must be approved by the state before being implemented.

A resident quoted in the article, Carol Winter, said it best “…. we are human beings and I want all the legal rights for the people, especially the elderly.” We absolutely agree. With the cooperation of the current owner, LAACO Ltd., we are developing the relocation plan in order to protect the rights of the tenants to receive relocation benefits.

Of course no plan can ameliorate all the disruption relocation will cause. However, the plan will provide financial and other assistance that tenants are ordinarily not legally entitled to receive. In fact, if the property were sold for private and not public use, the current tenants would not be eligible for relocation benefits.

A few tenants apparently believe that the sale to ALC really masks a future real estate development on a portion of the property near PCH. ALC has no such plans. When we purchase the Topanga Canyon property, we will immediately transfer the property to state ownership. ALC is a non-profit 501c(3) charitable organization; we work on the slimmest of margins and seek only to recover our costs of doing business.

Public acquisition of lower Topanga Canyon and its restoration as part of California’s natural heritage is a unique opportunity to provide truly priceless benefits to future generations.

Harriet Burgess, President

I thank your paper for its efforts to deliver an unbiased view.

In last week’s article about our Lower Topanga community (“Lower Topanga tenants told to go”) there were two statements regarding the use of California taxpayers money which should be corrected.

On the front page of the article, it says that “The ALC has optioned to buy the property for $43 million with the goal of donating it to State Parks.” The ALC in fact has no intention of donating the land but intends to sell the property to State Parks. If this deal went through, the State Parks Dept. would use the $40 million of taxpayers money raised by Prop. 12 last year to purchase the land.

Although the ALC is set up as a non-profit conservancy, it would be better characterized as a real estate broker for the state.

With an annual operating budget of $2 million, the head of the ALC, Harriet Burgess, says that if she does her job well, she turns a 25 percent profit (Seattle Times 10/29/98).

The second statement is a quote by State Parks officials saying that “If the State Parks acquires the land with tenants then they become liable for relocation and then it (relocation costs) will be paid for with tax money.” This implies that if a private company like the ALC purchased the land, the state could avoid its obligations under relocation laws, including relocation costs. This is just not so – any time land is purchased for the state, whoever buys the land is responsible for complying with legal guidelines created by the government for exactly this set of circumstances.

Further, we find it unconscionable that the first step in what is undoubtedly a long process would be to evict the tenants. We see what has happened at the foot of Topanga and PCH where a gas station used to reside on LAACO property. It has sat abandoned for months and is now the type of eyesore with gang graffiti and fences that we all moved here to Malibu to avoid in the first place.

Is this to be the fate of our community while years of studies and plans are made? One does not have to look far to see that this process takes time.

Up Topanga Canyon lies Trippet Ranch, sold to the state in 1970, it was not designated as a park until four years later, and the only change that happened there was the addition of a parking lot. Original residences remain with renters on the property to this day.

In Crystal Cove, State Parks purchased land in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1982 that a park plan was even approved. In a similar economic climate to today, no funds were available to do anything and 25 years later, no park plan has yet to be implemented (the original tenants have remained on the land to this day).

The tenants and businesses of this community are not against the idea of a state park in Lower Topanga. We occupy less then 3% of the acquisition and believe that there is a fair compromise where families and businesses, which have resided here for decades will not be evicted by the end of the year as threatened by the American Land Conservancy.

Don Hassid

Lower Topanga Community Association

At night we all see him hiding in his black and white SUV somewhere on PCH. He is the jolly, happy hunter who patrols the PCH for speeders and other traffic violators. He is always pleasant, and he is always professional. When he exits his vehicle, and he approaches your vehicle, you see a pleasant, friendly man in green. He makes all of us proud of the fact that he wears the badge and protects us in Malibu.

Deputy Christopher Bryan rarely loses a case in court. I have seen him testify in the Malibu courthouse and he is credible, professional and, above all else, always courteous to the court and to the alleged traffic violator.

Deputy Bryan played football at UCLA in his youth, and he still looks like a football player at 6’8″ with a solid build.

When Deputy Bryan is not wearing the badge on duty, there is another side to him. During the daytime, while his wife is working, he raises their young child. He doesn’t need his badge or gun when he feeds his youngster, changes the diaper of his youngster, burps the youngster, all to be deputy dad at home during the day.

So for all of you who have had the pleasure of interfacing with Deputy Bryan in our wonderful Malibu community, take an opportunity to look behind the badge. There is a lot more to this man than meets the eye. The Malibu City Council should give serious thought to recognizing his dual achievements as both deputy dad and Deputy Bryan. We all admire him and we wish him well in both of his full-time jobs.

I feel that all the citizens of Malibu have a St. Christopher medal around their necks when Deputy Christopher is on duty.

Pat Maginnis

The recent settlement approved by the residents of Paradise Cove represents a remarkable sea change in one of the most beautiful spots in Malibu. The credit for this goes to the Malibu City Council for taking the initiative to propose an alternate course to ten years of litigation. The Kissel Company has offered a very good compromise to the residents that incorporates some excellent details: provisions for low-income residents to avoid economic eviction; details concerning timetables for the construction of a new wastewater system; and a seven-year phase-in of the rent increase. When one considers the downside of continued litigation, this is really a wonderful opportunity that the residents have wisely seized.

As a resident of the Cove for ten years, I heard some very negative things about the Kissel Company. When I became President of the Homeowners Association and sat down with Steve Dahlberg of the Kissel Company one-on-one, I found him to be reasonable, open to the concerns of the residents, and eager to reach consensus toward what are essentially common goals with the residents. I also found him to be a man of his word. I have full confidence that the Kissel Company will honor its side of the agreement and that the residents will be seeing some rapid changes in the Cove.

To the residents of Malibu: The days of Paradise Cove appearing in the local newspapers only in terms on litigation and conflict are over. The thorn of Paradise Cove has been removed from the City of Malibu. The City Council and the residents of Malibu can focus their full attention and energy to all of the other challenges facing Malibu.

Like everyone who lives in the Cove, I realize how lucky I am to live in one of the most beautiful spots on the planet. On behalf of the residents of Paradise Cove, I want to sincerely thank the City Council for brokering a realistic compromise ending ten years of conflict. I also want to thank the Kissel Company for offering very generous terms with some excellent guarantees. I look forward to working with the Kissel Company to restoring peace and harmony in Paradise.

Rick Mullen, President

Paradise Cove Homeowners Association

The coming of warm summer days signals to me the invasion of the loud motorcycles in Malibu. I have nothing against motorcycles but many are modified to be so loud it is unbearable to be in my home all weekend. I am sure I am not the only one affected by them. Imagine a single rider who goes on a fifty mile pleasure drive. Think of how many people he affects with his loud noise on that ride. Hundreds of people and families have to endure them passing by. Now multiply that by the hundreds that come here on summer weekends.

The laws on the books now require a sheriff to test for the noise level from over fifty feet away. The legal noise level now is above that which is legally allowed by trucks. There is also a law on the books that say the manufacturer will not be held responsible for building illegal motorcycles above the noise limit set by law.

These laws are written for the motorcycles protection, only. We have endured them long enough. In October all new bills will be considered if they will be put on the slate in February. Now we have a chance to let the law makers hear our voice on this. Please write to them. Ask them to sponsor a bill to lower the legal noise limit and to have a mandatory vehicle test for noise before they can be registered. Fran Pavley, Congress, and Sheila Kuehl, Senate, can change this for us. Please call or write to them.

Jeannette de Langis