Column on Topanga Proposal

I’m sorry Joan Cooper (Letters, Dec. 28) didn’t read Al Martinez’s column of Dec. 9 in the spirit in which it was written. Most people did, and found it extremely humorous. It was one of the funniest things I’ve ever read.

The Viewridge homeowners association may claim that they “required” the removal of the condos and heliport from the proposed Montevideo project. More realistic is that the developer agreed to drop them before the Planning Commission insisted they be removed.

Since the developer, Chris Wojciechowski, does not own the property in question, private ownership and free enterprise are not in question here, nor is the tax base of Topanga, an unincorporated county area with no local government. Ms. Cooper suggested that opponents to this project come up with a viable alternative. The Planning Commission’s procedures require that any proposing developer provide alternative plans that do not require changes to current law. The proposed private Montevideo project would require an area plan amendment, a general plan amendment, a conditional use permit and a zone change. Summit Valley, the site in question, is not zoned for 400-plus houses and is not surrounded by existing high-density housing. If these claims were true, the developer would be nearly through with construction, rather than in his fifth year before Regional Planning.

Most people opposing this project are not self-limiting enough to be “only concerned with stopping development.” We are constructive enough to work for positive development and the support of the area plan. The area plan has been adopted and was developed over seven years by a balanced citizens’ advisory commission. The area plan was paid for by you, the county taxpayer. The Constitution of the United States, since Ms. Cooper mentioned it, took four months to write and has been amended only 17 times in almost 200 years. I just wish the same could be said for the area plan.

Despite Ms. Cooper’s claim that the Montevideo project is not in conflict with the area plan or the general plan, again, if it were not in conflict, construction would nearly be finished. Instead, we are going for our third public hearing on March 3.

The Santa Monica Mountains Area Plan, like others in the county, is a more specific document for the Santa Monica mountains area. The section that remains in question deals with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan, and this is near adoption after court clarifications.

Ms. Cooper mentioned that due to “remedial repair work, as required by law, any project built in Summit Valley will require the same amount of earth movement.” This is an unsupported claim made at the last hearing. There has been no substantiation offered. Regarding Ms. Cooper’s claim of “well-orchestrated public hysteria,” people do tend to get hysterical when their domestic tranquility and general welfare are threatened. The only orchestration was the concerted effort by the commission and other audience members to calm people down.

At the two hearings thus far, the commissioners have dominated testimony, asking the developer questions about his intentions and apparent needs for drastic changes, both in law and to the physical property. There are a number of other questions that will be raised by the opposition when we get the opportunity. What disturbed me the most about Ms. Cooper’s letter is that it did not include a discussion of the issues. This is a $100-million project, and there are issues here--water, traffic, sewage disposal and many others.

Anyone interested in more information should contact Regional Planning. Go downtown to 320 W. Temple and read the file. Look at the maps. Read the Draft Environmental Impact Report. I think all of us involved would welcome an informed, open discussion. Please note: Letters regarding Tentative Tract No. 35999 should be sent to Regional Planning, 320 W. Temple, Los Angeles 90012.

I believe that investigation of the facts regarding this proposal will provide the Regional Planning Commission with more than sufficient reason to deny plan amendments and a conditional use permit and to recommend a negative vote to the Board of Supervisors on the zone change.

MARTY CORBETT

Topanga