County’s Call for Surcharge Snags Trade for State Park

A long-awaited swap between the state and Los Angeles County of two large parks could be jeopardized by the county’s desire to be compensated because it says its land is far more valuable.

Both sides had agreed to trade the county’s Tapia Park in Agoura for the state’s Placerita Canyon Nature Center in the Santa Clarita Valley. The unusual swap, first suggested by homeowner activists in the Las Virgenes area three years ago, seemed ideal for both parties.

The county would no longer have to bear the expense of Tapia, which residents complain has deteriorated rapidly from lack of attention. Tapia would be absorbed into the nearby Malibu Creek State Park and a campground would be built on the property. In return, the county would own the Placerita Canyon Nature Center, which it has been operating anyway for decades.

But the agreement hit a snag recently when the county received appraisals of the two properties. At the county’s behest, a private appraiser assessed the value of Tapia’s 111 acres at $8.7 million and Placerita’s 331 acres at $2.5 million.

The county has decided to ask that the state compensate it for the large disparity in value. Park officials said they might request that the state pay for the construction of a campground at Castaic Lake Recreation Area or purchase additional property next to the Placerita Canyon Nature Center.

‘Balance Out the Value’

“We’re just looking at the possibility of trying to balance out the value of the property,” said James I. Okimoto, the county’s acting director of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

But a top state park official said the deal will collapse if the county insists on any reimbursement. The state has no discretionary money to pay the county, and its share of revenue from Proposition 70--the park bond issue approved by voters in June--already has been earmarked in Los Angeles County.

“We just don’t have it,” said Allen Ulm, deputy regional director of the state Department of Parks and Recreation, who said he hopes the county’s position is just a “trial balloon.”

“It’s very clear we do not intend to negotiate this,” he said.

Supporters of the trade angrily accuse the county of threatening to scuttle the deal with an artificially high estimate of Tapia’s worth.

“I don’t believe the appraisal,” said Linda Palmer, president of the Santa Monica Mountains Trails Council. “I’m completely shocked. I’m hoping someone will do another appraisal and show it’s false.”

The Placerita Canyon Nature Center is a rugged outpost that is home to bobcats, deer and gray fox just 2 1/2 miles from suburbia. The floor of the chaparral-covered canyon is dotted with oaks and sycamores. The park is heavily used by hikers and school groups for interpretive programs.

Tapia is a favorite of picnickers who can spread their blankets under the canopies of oaks. A stream meanders through the hilly park, which serves as a link to trails in the Santa Monica Mountains.

The private appraiser assessed the parks based on their “best and highest use,” said Curt Robertson, head of marketing at the county parks department. That means the appraiser determined what each property would be worth if it were sold for the development of housing tracts, he said. The Tapia property, near affluent homes in Calabasas and Monte Nido, would fetch a higher price than the Placerita Canyon acreage in the Santa Clarita Valley, where prices are lower, he said.

Homeowner activists say the Tapia appraisal is meaningless because homes would never be constructed on park property. They maintain that Tapia should be appraised solely as parkland, which would greatly reduce its value on paper.

Ulm, who said he has not yet received copies of the appraisals, agreed that the criteria used to appraise Tapia were skewed.

The county did not instruct the appraiser on what formula to use to conduct the assessments, Robertson said. Using the “highest and best use” test is a routine appraisal method, he said. Reacting to the criticism, Robertson said the appraisals could be redone.

“There is nothing irreversible if there is another basis for appraising them,” Robertson said.

Dave Brown, president of the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, called the appraisal “way out of line” after comparing it to prices paid by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for parkland near Tapia in recent years. None of the land acquisitions even approached the $78,000-an-acre value placed upon Tapia, which is in a flood plain and next to a sewer plant, Brown said.

Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said park agencies would be hard-pressed to buy land in the future if the Tapia appraisal is an accurate reflection of land prices in the area.

If the appraisal is correct, Edmiston said, “then we’re in big trouble in the mountains. We’re in real trouble.”

County officials have sought to assure backers of the swap that the deal shouldn’t be jeopardized by the county’s stance.

“Whatever it is we end up negotiating with the state on, it is not designed to impede the progress of the swap,” said Okimoto, who predicted the state probably would be flexible during talks.

“Our sole purpose is not to see how much we can get, it’s what is the best possible scenario for everybody involved, including the homeowners who would like the swap and the state and the county,” said Peter Whittingham, a deputy for Supervisor Mike Antonovich.

But homeowners remain disturbed at the prospect of the county keeping Tapia. They charge that the park is treated like an unwanted stepchild, where the roads are pitted with potholes, the bathrooms are chained shut and broken drinking fountains are not fixed. There are no full-time employees at the park, which residents say has attracted drug dealers and people who sleep overnight in their cars.

“If they are not going to take care of it and they don’t want the expense of taking care of it, then get rid of it,” urged Shirley Duryee, a board member of the Monte Nido Valley Property Owners Assn.