Valley Commentary : Watch Out for Parkland Deals Made on Shaky Grounds : The $20 million spent to save Canyon Oaks’ 662 not-so-terrific acres from the bulldozer could have bought 3,000 acres of scenic woodlands and canyons elsewhere.

There was general rejoicing a few weeks ago at the dramatic conclusion to the Canyon Oaks development controversy.

Canyon Oaks, you will recall, was the longest land-development controversy in Los Angeles County history. The plan to build houses and a golf course in upper Topanga Canyon aroused furious opposition among residents. On March 10, the day the county supervisors were to vote on it, a last-minute deal was announced that stopped the project.

I, too, was opposed to the Canyon Oaks development, but I am not comfortable with the way it was “defeated”--by being bought out with park funds.

The supervisors had abundant grounds for turning it down. It exceeded the amount of development permitted by the county’s own area plan; there was not enough water to serve it; there were no sewers.

But Canyon Oaks was not denied by the supervisors. It was bought by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy with almost $20 million, mostly money that county voters set aside in 1992 for the purchase of parkland.

Canyon Oaks cost $30,000 an acre. By comparison, the National Park Service has bought 20,000 acres of the Santa Monica Mountains over the past 15 years at an average price of $6,200 an acre.

Canyon Oaks became a cause celebre because it was the battleground between Valley-type tract development and the rustic community of Topanga. It was a land-use battle, but it was resolved with park money.

Did we get a high-quality park for our money? Does Canyon Oaks have the qualities a mountain park should have?

* Does it have an unspoiled scenic backdrop protected against future development? Summit Valley, the main part of Canyon Oaks, provides a scenic view, but unfortunately we did not buy all of that view. Eighty-five percent of the ridgelines surrounding Summit Valley remain in private hands. Some are already developed, including a particularly obtrusive mobile home park on the north ridgeline.

* Does it have reasonably level areas for picnicking, camping and parking? Canyon Oaks has almost no flat land.

* Does it have accessible natural areas nearby, especially woodlands and streams? There are patches of oak woodland in some of the side canyons. There are woodlands, small streams and sandstone formations in a 400-acre section of Canyon Oaks east of Summit Valley. But it takes a fair amount of hiking to get there.

* Is there good road access to the park with adequate parking? Topanga Canyon Boulevard goes right through Canyon Oaks, but parking on the highway is limited. The only road into the property is a steep track connecting to the highway on a blind hairpin curve, and only a handful of cars will fit at the bottom of this track.

*

Canyon Oaks suffers by comparison with other current park purchases.

Jordan Ranch. In June the National Park Service purchased the 2,308-acre ranch from a reluctant, tightfisted Bob Hope for $16.7 million, a per-acre price of $7,235--one-fourth of the per-acre cost of Canyon Oaks. We got a two-mile-long, oak-filled valley protected from ridge top to ridge top; plenty of level land; a scenic upland meadow with panoramic views in all direction, and thousands of oak trees with wilderness habitat for mountain lions and golden eagles.

Avatar. This 348-acre property will cost almost as much per acre as Canyon Oaks but is accessible right off the streets of Woodland Hills and Tarzana and is only a few blocks from Ventura Boulevard bus stops. There are oak and walnut trees with room for picnicking and trail head parking with easy trails up to Mulholland.

Soka. The conservancy is buying this property for a main park visitor center and staging area. For this purpose, Soka is far superior to Canyon Oaks. It has more than 100 acres of level meadows ringed by oak trees, access to adjoining parkland (Canyon Oaks has no other parks nearby), easy freeway access and plenty of parking and a spectacular scenic backdrop in Malibu Creek State Park. Its buildings can be used as visitor centers, museums and overnight facilities for schoolchildren.

Canyon Oaks, by comparison, is an average piece of parkland, a Volkswagen. We paid a Mercedes-Benz price for it because we allowed park money to be used to resolve a heated land-use conflict.

Protecting Topanga is a commendable goal, but it is a land use goal, not a park goal. Park money should buy the best possible parks, not be used to protect communities from development threats.

Land use issues should be resolved through fair and open planning and zoning. This is difficult to achieve in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County because Supervisors Deane Dana and Mike Antonovich support just about every development that comes along.

*

Because the board practically never enforces the County General Plan, uncertainty hangs over land value. Appraisers have no idea what the county will approve. So appraised values can rise far above the land’s real market value.

Land development controversies like Canyon Oaks generate political heat for elected officials, as well as anxiety, anger and frustration for residents. Often someone starts a campaign to “buy it for a park!” A park agency looking for public support is tempted to respond, and harried developers and elected officials may see government purchase as a win-win action for placating the contending parties. No one asks whether this “park” will really serve a regional public need. Often it doesn’t.

Meanwhile, outstanding potential parklands, some of national park quality, in less developed areas of the Santa Monicas are not being purchased because there is not an aggressive resident constituency to lobby for them. The money spent on 662 acres of Canyon Oaks would have bought 3,000 acres of scenic ridges, woodlands and canyons at typical prices.

Even existing parks are incomplete and not fully protected from development impacts. For example, some of the best views from Point Mugu State Park, Circle X Park, Leo Carrillo State Beach, Solstice Canyon Park, Malibu Canyon, Malibu Creek State Park and existing state parklands in Topanga are still in private ownership and open to development. Views that were unspoiled 10 years ago are now marred by graded roads, large cut-and-fill pads and garish mansions. Potential parks have been ruined and existing parks degraded.

Money to complete the purchase of Solstice Canyon Park was diverted to buy out an overpriced development in Studio City three years ago. Now Solstice Canyon is threatened by development.

Malibu Canyon--one-third as deep as the Grand Canyon and a backdrop for Malibu Beach--was threatened by a tract proposal on the east rim. The developer was persuaded to offer the property to the conservancy, but the money to buy it has now been diverted to Canyon Oaks.

*

The “Canyon Oaks” of the Ventura Freeway corridor is Malibu Terrace, the wooded hillside and valley you see in the distance going west over the Calabasas Grade. Seven years ago, a controversial apartment development was proposed there.

In many ways Malibu Terrace would make a better park than Canyon Oaks--and cost less. But it faces a different fate. A few days ago, the Regional Planning Commission approved 112 homes and a mini-mall on Malibu Terrace.

Canyon Oaks will live. Malibu Terrace will die. And that’s no cause for rejoicing.