L.A.’s Land Purchases in Mountains Criticized

The city of Los Angeles has gone on a shopping spree for open space in the Santa Monica Mountains, sparking a heated debate over whether officials are paying too much in the name of preserving wilderness.

Faced with the threat of housing developments on pristine hillsides, the city has recently purchased or is in the process of buying half a dozen properties totaling nearly 2,000 acres in the Santa Monicas so they can be maintained for hikers, bikers and nature lovers.

For many, the question is not preservation, but cost.

“The developers are getting dream deals. It’s outrageous,” said Patricia Bell Hearst, past president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns.

The concerns raised about costs follow charges by many city leaders that scarce park funds should not be spent on open space in affluent areas in the first place--not when there is a dearth of parks in the city’s poor neighborhoods.

At the center of the current debate is a proposal to buy 239 acres in Mandeville Canyon from San Fernando Valley car dealer and political power broker Bert Boeckmann.

City officials say they have a “handshake agreement” with Boeckmann to buy the Brentwood property for $5 million, although the sale is contingent on a city appraisal. Boeckmann purchased the property in 1978.

A mayoral appointee to the city Police Commission, Boeckmann is the owner of Galpin Motors in North Hills. The firm was listed by the city Ethics Commission recently as among the top 20 sources of political contributions to Los Angeles officials in the last two elections. Boeckmann, his company and his employees gave $40,000 to the campaigns of city officials.

Any purchase requires City Council approval because funds from Proposition K, the $750-million special tax approved by voters for park projects, are involved.

Boeckmann planned to build 34 mansions on the property, dubbed Mandeville Canyon Estates. His appraisal values the land at $13.9 million.

Boeckmann did not respond to requests for comment, but he has said in the past that at the request of Mayor Richard Riordan he is willing to do the city a favor and let go of the property for $5 million, plus $8.5 million in tax write-offs.

“Obviously the property is appraised at far in excess of that,” said George Mihlsten, an attorney for Boeckmann. “I think it would be an incredible deal for the city. It’s a fabulous piece of property.”

The price amounts to $20,900 per acre, nearly triple the $7,500-per-acre cost of adjacent land purchased by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy late last year. Court documents and conservancy records place a value on an adjoining parcel, the 1,525-acre Eastport property, at $11.5 million.

Hearst and others say the Eastport property could be developed more easily than Boeckmann’s land, which has landslide problems that a geologist for a neighboring property owner estimated would require $2 million to $6 million to resolve, according to city records.

City records indicate that the Department of Building and Safety issued an “order to comply” in 1980 and a certificate of substandard property in 1981, both of which required that steps be taken to stabilize the soil on Boeckmann’s land.

Those orders still stand, and concerns about the instability of the property have blocked city approval of Boeckmann’s application for a tract map to develop the land, according to Luke Zamperini, a city building official.

In contrast, the Eastport property had development entitlements, officials said.

Mihlsten contended that the mudslide and drainage problems are the responsibility of the city, which he said permitted another developer to dump dirt on the property before it was purchased by Boeckmann. Boeckmann has not taken corrective action because it is not his responsibility, Mihlsten said.

City real estate manager Robert Holloway said that an appraiser hired by the city rejected Boeckmann’s value and that the city is likely to set the price below the $5 million he has offered.

But Boeckmann has told city officials that $5 million is as low as he will go.

“The price is not outrageous,” said Michael Jimenez, an aide to City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski. He said other recent city acquisitions cost more than $20,000 per acre, including the city purchase of 79 acres last year in Deervale Canyon in Sherman Oaks for $4.5 million.

That deal worked out to $56,962 per acre, which Jimenez said is the standard against which the Boeckmann deal should be judged.

“We could say [that] from this point forward we won’t buy anything for more than $10,000 an acre, but then we’re not going to buy anything,” Jimenez said.

The Deervale purchase did not escape criticism. The city paid $4.5 million despite a city appraisal that fixed the value at $3.6 million, city records show.

Hearst said the city’s willingness to spend $900,000 more than its own appraisal for the Deervale property gives her misgivings about how the city will handle the Boeckmann proposal.

In 1991, the City Council approved a deal that provided a developer with $10.4 million in cash and land for 63 acres in Fryman Canyon south of Studio City, despite an appraised price of $8.7 million.

Councilmen Mark Ridley-Thomas and Mike Hernandez said they are also concerned that the city may be spending more than necessary for mountain land, when funds for inner city parks are in short supply.

Questions about cost have also been raised by Nancy Smith, a member of the central-city Volunteer Neighborhood Oversight Committee on Proposition K funds.

She challenged the Boeckmann land purchase, saying the city should not spend $5 million on property next to an affluent area and shortchange inner city residents.

“There are very few opportunities for children in my area to even get to the Santa Monica Mountains, because they are poor,” she said.