Others may wish to correct many of the factual errors in your recent “Charm of Charmlee Park” article, but I want to set the record straight about how Malibu came to own Charmlee, why there are restrictions on its use, and the role my wife and I played in that process.
Sandy and I became involved with Charmlee almost immediately after we moved to Malibu in 1988. We lived near it, we had been involved with parks everywhere we had lived and Charmlee was, and still is, a unique and spectacular asset. Together we created the Charmlee Nature Preserve Foundation, of which I was the founding president. The foundation continues to support and fund the public programs at Charmlee.
Charmlee was originally a part of the Los Angeles County Natural Area Park system. As the last such park to be acquired, it was the most vulnerable to closure when the county ran into severe budget problems about 1990 and was slashing its parks budget. Instead of spending time and effort on improving the public program at Charmlee, three months of every year was devoted to a lobbying campaign just to keep the Board of Supervisors from closing the park altogether.
When Malibu became a city, it presented a possible solution to Charmlee’s uncertain long-term viability. Perhaps Malibu could operate the park at a lower cost than the county and begin to establish a Malibu parks and recreation program without incurring the impossible costs of major land acquisition. Charmlee alone would not be enough to get a broad spectrum of city residents behind the idea, but a package of Charmlee, Bluffs Park and the Equestrian Center provided something for many different interest groups. The deal we proposed was that Malibu would take over operation of all three parks from the county.
This concept met the objectives of both the city council and the board of supervisors. Malibu citizens supported it and the transfer of all three parks was quickly effected under a simple operating agreement.
At the time, both the city and the county understood that an eventual transfer of full ownership of all three parks was a possibility to be worked toward, but each property had unique problems. An indication of the complexity of those issues is that ten years later, the city still doesn’t own Bluffs Park or the Equestrian Center.
Outright ownership of Charmlee might have been transferred rather quickly, except for the VMS-Anden/Banyan/Semele Rancho Malibu project nearby in Encinal Canyon. Since the city opposed the project both at the county and in the courts, and since Sandy and I were leading the community opposition groups, the project owners threatened to sue to block any transfer of ownership.
Although the city eventually dropped out of the Rancho Malibu fight, the Charmlee transfer stalemate persisted as long as our opposition to the project continued. The case against the county, with Rancho Malibu as the real party at interest, was on appeal in 1998 when Sandy and I decided to move to Santa Barbara to be closer to my job.
Before we could leave Malibu with a sense of completion, we had two pieces of unfinished business to attend to. An acceptable settlement of the Rancho Malibu litigation was needed and we wanted to leave Charmlee with strong protections against grandiose development and commercialization ideas being floated by certain elements in the city administration and citizen recreation cliques.
All the parties to the lawsuit agreed to settle the suit. One of the settlement provisions was that Rancho Malibu would not oppose a transfer of Charmlee to the city of Malibu. Another provision was that the county would make the transfer subject to certain deed restriction designed to protect its heritage as a natural area park and that the city would maintain access to the park for all, and not restrict it to city residents alone.
The restrictions were important because of the unique natural assets of Charmlee; the incredible diversity of its flora and fauna, the many threatened and endangered species found there and the spectacular view. They were also important because of the fragility of its geology. The city was not a party of the lawsuit so it had nothing to say regarding the terms of its settlement. The county did not even have to consult with the city regarding the terms of transfer, but it did, and the city council agreed to the open space and passive recreation deed restrictions. And why wouldn’t it? How often has anyone given the city 500 acres of spectacular property for free? Can you believe that some people are now complaining because they can’t trash the most incredible gift the city has ever received, or is ever likely to receive.
I can absolutely confirm that the “Russell couple” were responsible for the deed restrictions, although we had a lot of support from many others. We are immensely proud of the way we were able to protect Charmlee. A unique set of circumstances and convergent interests created the opportunity, and even the determined efforts of Laurene Sills, Christi Hogin, certain council members and others were unsuccessful in thwarting what was so obviously an incredible deal for Malibu. No city council, no mater how dismissive of the environment they may be, can undo those ironclad deed restrictions. These are not just for the “time being” as Tom Hasse suggests. They will stay with the property forever.
Unfortunately, the city has not demonstrated that it is worthy of this special gift. Its stewardship of Charmlee has been shameful. Before the voters of Malibu give the city council millions for park acquisition, they should consider carefully how it has failed with the one park it does own. In hindsight, it might have been much better if Charmlee had been transferred to the state or national park system instead. They seem to appreciate their parks. Maybe it is because they didn’t get them for free.
Paul J. Russell