Zoned Out in Topanga:
Whistle Blowers, The Law and Ways to
Take Control
Part Two in the series, Working It Out
By Michele Johnson
In upscale Henry Ridge, the neighborhood is in turmoil because someone has
been on the phone, turning in neighbors for zoning infractions. In another part
of the Canyon, a homeowner, upset about being turned into the County, snitches
on 30 other neighbors in retaliation. In Tuna Canyon, a battle rages over whether
or not new homes should be built in an environmentally sensitive area. Part
of the fallout: members of TUNA (Tuna United Neighborhood Association) are turned
in by persons unknown for everything from planting illegal eucalyptuses to having
too many chimneys.
Over the course of the last month
or so, people have approached the Messenger with these and other alarming
stories all on the same theme. Each had been turned in by somebody to Los Angeles
County Regional Planning, Building and Safety, the California Coastal Commission
or the County Health Department for a variety of alleged violations. Are tattletales
taking over Topanga? Well, not exactly.
The individual cases are alarming, but the general statistics are not as worrisome.
Also, the attitudes toward enforcement by both Regional Planning, and Building
and Safety, are pretty reassuring. Los Angeles County Regional Planning, which
oversees zoning enforcement, has 78 open cases currently in the Topanga area
out of approximately 4,500 families. Rudy Lachner, the Administrator of Land
Use Regulation for Regional Planning, insists that its zoning enforcement unit
only acts on complaints, and does not seek out zoning infractions. "In
Topanga, our enforcement is reactive, not proactive." They act on complaints
from private citizens who are allowed to remain anonymous by law, and other
public agencies. And in fact, there were only 41 cases opened in 1998, and 53
cases opened in 1999. "We're not a threat to the community. If we wanted
to, we could go out to the community in one afternoon and open more cases than
that."
Mark Pestrella of County Building and Safety, who enforces building code violations,
estimates that an average of three complaints a week come in concerning Topanga
properties, which would work out to about 156 a year. Of those, only about 10
are open at any one time.
HOW ABOUT HOUSING?
But, for the people affected, the problem is very real. Up on Henry Ridge--an area off Entrado served by a private road--the situation has gotten particularly ugly. Someone up there has turned in at least four homeowners, two for illegal rentals. In one case, a young couple bought a 20-acre holding on Henry Ridge. The house was "run down with rats and vermin, and a wall had fallen down," said the man who bought it, who has asked to remain anonymous. He said when they bought it, the property was advertised as "rental income property" and has three addresses--three mailboxes and three trailers that had all been rented out. "It's been like that for 20 years," he said. But only a month after they moved into their new home, someone reported them to Regional Planing. They were forced to shut down their rentals immediately, and could face further action.
Now the couple is trying to obtain
legal permits for the trailers. In order to apply for new permits, said the
husband, they must submit a $6,300 application fee that can not be refunded.
"There's two or three different permits that would do the job," he
said. He could apply for a caretaker's mobile home. In fact, they had been planning
to trade rent with a couple in one of the trailers in exchange for carpentry,
electrical work and carpet cleaning while they remodeled their home.
They could also apply for a senior citizen residence (commonly called a "granny
unit") that could be legally rented out to up to two people if one of them
is over 62 years old. Or, because they have sufficient acreage, they could look
into creating a guest ranch on their property.
The man is philosophical. "I'm not blaming the neighbor (who turned him
in). It's my own fault for not knowing It will elevate my position to have my
property legal." But, he laments, "You want to have your home be your
place of refuge. This neighborhood is not a place of refuge."
Rentals are a particularly knotty problem in Topanga. It's an open secret that
many people--including quite a few senior citizens--rely on rentals to help
pay their mortgage and keep them from selling their homes. In the same way,
those in Topanga's shrinking middle class renting the polyglot of guest houses,
reconverted garages and trailers, could not live here at all if these kinds
of affordable units weren't available. Finally, some generous Topangans have
opened their doors to "creekers" and others living on the edge and
let them live in trailers on their property for little or no rent. Where would
these people go if their rentals disappeared tomorrow?
How many illegal units are there? Nobody knows for sure. According to the last
census, 11% of Topangans rent, though it's impossible to know how many of these
were living in legally-rented houses, and how many in illegal rentals.
Legal rentals are becoming a scarce commodity in Topanga. Some leading citizens
have already been forced out, as the houses they legally rented were sold in
the booming market and the new owners took possession. Jan Mitchell, clay teacher
to Topanga for many years, was one who lost her home last year and couldn't
find an affordable replacement. Robin Maxwell, a best-selling historical novelist
and Tuna Canyon activist, was also forced to move when her rental was sold.
Lachner confirms that throughout most of Topanga, where it is zoned for single-family
residences, second units are illegal. The only exceptions are permitted caretaker
units and granny units. Why is renting so restricted? Lachner says some of the
units rented out were not originally built with building permits and could be
inherently unsafe. In general, he insists, trailers are the most dangerous.
And no legally-built guest house can have any kind of kitchen, he adds, but
many "have bootlegged kitchens. Gas lines, etc., may not have been approved.
You may have a fire hazard there." Why no kitchens? "If it has a kitchen,
by definition, it becomes another single-family residence."
Then, he adds, an area is zoned for single-family residences to protect a neighborhood
from undue traffic and noise.
STATE MANDATES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Should second units ever be allowed
in areas zoned for single-family residences? Could any of these now illegal
rentals be "grandfathered" in? Well, the State of California seems
to think so. California Government Code (Statute 65852.150) reads this way:
"The Legislature finds that second units are a valuable form of housing
in California. Second units provide housing for family members, students, the
elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled and others, at below-market
prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who have second units benefit
from added income and increased sense of security. It is the intent of the Legislature
that any second-unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of
providing for the creation of second units, and that provisions in these ordinances
are not so arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict
the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are
authorized by local ordinance."
In addition, the state has mandated that local agencies "have a responsibility
to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development
of housing needs of all economic segments of the community." To fulfill
this obligation, the County must find ways to help supply a certain number of
affordable units.
George Malone is the regional planner overseeing the general update of the County
Plan, which is going on right now. The existing housing element is being updated
for the first time since 1989. Part of that update must focus on affordable
housing. When asked what the County is currently doing to solve the affordable
housing crisis, both Lachner and Malone came up with only two examples, both
already specifically mandated by the state. One is the density bonus, which
encourages the construction of new affordable housing. That has little to do
with Topanga, where no new developments are planned, and probably none would
be allowed. The only other concession to affordable housing is the granny unit.
When asked if any existing second units could or should be legalized to provide
affordable housing, Malone responded, "I don't think anyone with the Planning
Department will sanction that." The question seems to be, Is their a middle
ground here, room for compromise?
Anyone who would like to know more can attend a public hearing on the revised
housing element of the County Plan at the Regional Planning offices downtown
at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 26.
Community members have another tool available to them if they want to tackle
the rental issue or any other zoning matter. If community members believe County
zoning law need to be changed in their area, they can band together and form
their own Community Standards District, which can, under a strict process that
includes public hearings, propose new zoning standards that would apply just
to their district. Any changes agreed on must still be taken to the County Board
of Supervisors for a vote.
In the 1980s, a group of Topangans, under the auspices of the Town Council,
moved to set up a Topanga Community Standards District. Their immediate goal
was to fight what they saw as inconsistent application of confusing zoning regulations
that allowed overbuilding on small parcels. Says Marty Brastow, one of the organizers,
"It was something we worked out in cooperation with the county." The
Community Standards District remains in place, one of about a dozen in all of
Los Angeles County. So if Topangans want change that applies only to Topanga,
they have the method to move for it.
More to come. "Zoned Out" continues in the next issue of the
Messenger.
By Susan Chasen
James W. Hancock's
attorney has requested additional time to locate a material witness for his
case and to consider settlement options before going to trial.
Attorney Richard Hertzog made the request on February 24 in Malibu Superior
Court before Judge James Albracht.
Hertzog also explained that, after living in one place for nearly 20 years
and having no relatives who can take him in, Hancock, 65, is having difficulty
finding a new place to live.
Judge Albracht agreed to put off Hancock's trial to March 16 or within 10
days thereafter.
Hancock, who was arrested during a raid on his cabin residence at 252 Old
Topanga Canyon Road in September, has pleaded not guilty to charges of possession
of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
A previous enhancement to the charge for allegedly dealing drugs within 1,000
feet of a schoolyard was dropped. That charge would have carried the longest
potential sentence of those facing Hancock, according to Narcotics Detective
Tui Wright with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lost Hills station.
Since his arrest, Hancock has become the center of a simmering local controversy.
On the one hand, Hancock, the gray-bearded woodcutter, has become a symbol
of Topanga's perhaps fading free-spirit identity.
His arrest, and the subsequent press reports, have generated sympathy from
those who are afraid that Topanga is losing its "live and let live"
tolerance which once might have extended to the occasional drug dealer.
On the other hand, the closeness of Hancock's home to Topanga Elementary School--as
the crow flies, or according to many, by way of a useable trail linking the
two properties--and his alleged drug sales, have prompted genuine concern
among parents in the community. These allegations, if true, suggest that users
of methamphetamine--or "speed"--are coming and going from the area,
and that there is a potential for violence that could put children at risk.
But underlying the current controversy is the pre-existing dispute between
Hancock and Robert Harris, the owner of the property Hancock had been living
on.
According to court documents, in August 1999, just over a month before Hancock's
arrest, Hancock filed a lawsuit against Harris seeking damages for emotional
distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of process arising from a previous
attempt by Harris to evict Hancock by what he contends were fraudulent means.
Then in December, Harris filed a cross complaint citing Hancock's alleged
illegal drug sales as well as alleged citizen complaints and violations of
building codes and zoning laws as a breach of a 1997 court stipulation that
defined terms under which Hancock would be allowed to remain on Harris's property.
Harris's complaint also contends that Harris entered into the stipulation
agreement on false pretenses, because it was not disclosed to him at the time
that Hancock had been convicted in 1995 on felony charges of possessing methamphetamine
for sale.
Judge Patricia Collins, on February 14, denied Hancock's demurrer--commonly
referred to as a legal "so what"--and ruled that he will have to
answer Harris's cross complaint within 40 days.
According to Hancock's complaint, he has suffered humiliation, mental anguish
and emotional distress as a result of Harris's conspiring to create a false
offer to sell the property for $150,000 as a subterfuge to evict Hancock.
According to the stipulation agreement, Harris is to notify Hancock of any
offer to buy the property, and to allow him 15 days to match the other party's
offer. If he is unable to, Hancock would then have 60 days to vacate the property.
However, when Harris notified Hancock of such an offer in October 1998 and
eventually sought to evict Hancock, a judge agreed with Hancock that the offer
was not legitimate, and he denied Harris's right to require Hancock to vacate
the property.
Harris, however, maintains in his current cross-complaint that it was a legitimate
offer.
Harris' attorney writes that Hancock's complaint is "inane" and
part of a twisted tale in which Hancock, "not content to live rent-free
for 20 years," has interfered with the sale of the property and is now
suing Harris.
For Hancock, however, his care for the property and improvements--the cabin
and storage area, the terracing, the retaining walls, the brick driveway and
planted flowers--amount to a real investment in the property--seven days a
week of his life--since moving there in 1979 or 1980. His work has made the
property usable, according to the complaint.
According to court documents, Hancock moved to the site in 1979 or early 1980
at the invitation of an elderly woman named Teddy who had a phone answering
business. She reportedly told Hancock that she knew Harris and that it would
be all right. Later, Hancock says, he met Harris and was told he could stay
if he kept the property clean and cleared the brush.
Sparks
Charged With Meth Sales
By Susan Chasen
A former Topanga
resident was arrested driving into the Canyon on Thursday, February 10,
for allegedly transporting and possessing methamphetamine for sale, police
said.
Steven Phillip Sparks, 51, was stopped for traffic violations at the corner
of Topanga Canyon Boulevard and Entrado at 2:45 p.m. and was subsequently
arrested, after approximately two grams of methamphetamine were found in
the car, according to Narcotics Detective Tui Wright with the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department.
"We suspect him of being involved in making drug deliveries in Topanga
and drug sales in Topanga," Wright said.
According to Wright, Sheriff's deputies found drugs packaged for sale, baggies,
and a scale, inside the 1970 gold Chevrolet pickup Sparks was driving.
Wright said Sparks was pulled over for an improperly functioning taillight
and for speeding in the rain. However, according to Wright, he has also
been under investigation for possible drug dealing.
After Sparks was pulled over, Wright said, Sheriff's deputies observed drug
paraphernalia in the car.
According to Wright, Sparks has lived in Topanga over the years. Sparks
reportedly identified his current residence as West Hills, but Wright said
Sheriff's investigators believe he had been staying in hotels in Woodland
Hills before the arrest.
After subsequent investigation, approximately $10,000 was seized from Sparks'
bank account on suspicion that the money is proceeds from drug sales. Wright
said, "He had financial documents that showed a possible link between
his narcotics dealing and cash that was in a bank account."
Under current assets forfeiture law, if the money is to be returned Sparks
will have to prove, at a forfeiture hearing, that it did not come from drug
dealing.
According to Wright, Sparks told police he was unemployed at the time of
his arrest.
Sparks, who has plead not guilty, has been released on his own recognizance
pending a felony arraignment on March 9 before Judge James Albracht in Malibu
Superior Court.
On February 28, Judge Lawrence Mira ruled that Sparks should be held to
answer on the two felony charges of possession of a controlled substance
for sale and sale or transfer of a controlled substance.
Asked if recent drug arrests in Topanga indicate a significant drug trafficking
problem, Wright said no, but he added that activities here have been increasing.
In a small community like Topanga, he stated, a little police intervention
can go a long way to discourage drug dealers: "It really can make an
impact. It all starts with people in the community complaining to us."
Wright also said that finding relatively small quantities of drugs is typical:
"It is common for drug dealers to deliver small amounts," he said.
Smaller amounts are easier to hide and carry lighter sentences if they are
found, he added.
According to Wright, the two grams of rock and powder methamphetamine found
when Sparks was pulled over amount to between 40 and 100 doses.
Wright said there was no known connection between Sparks and James W. Hancock,
whose arrest in September has created some controversy in Topanga. Wright
did say, however, that often when one dealer is arrested another may move
in to supply local addicts.