The city attorney says she holds out hope that a compromise can be worked out so the conflict over the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s parks enhancement plan will not need to go to court. Malibu’s mayor says settling a dispute like this in court is bad public policy.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
No papers have been filed yet, but the city of Malibu says it will file a lawsuit next week if the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has not set aside the approval of its parks enhancement plan by that time. The City Council gave City Attorney Christi Hogin the go-ahead to file the suit during its meeting on Monday.
The SMMC board late last month approved a plan to enhance the parks at Ramirez, Corral and Escondido canyons with overnight campsites and to connect them with trails. The plan has been criticized by local residents and city officials on various grounds. Hogin said in an interview on Tuesday that a city suit would focus on the fact that the project lacks an environmental impact report and the city has no authority over its approval. But she said she holds out hope that the city and SMMC staffs can reach an accord prior to next Wednesday, the deadline for the city to challenge the board approval.
“These are sophisticated experienced people who care about the same things that Malibu does; the environment, public access, a balance between property rights and the public’s ability to enjoy the parks,” Hogin said. “I’m hoping that we’ll be able to reach some sort of an understanding; and, if not, we’ll go forward.”
Hogin said it is also possible that if something is not worked out by next Wednesday, but rather next month or later than that, a complaint could be filed and then never reach the courts.
The threat of litigation is most likely not a surprise to SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston, who could not be reached for comment. He has said in past interviews that he expected the city to challenge his plan.
The Ramirez Canyon property owners and anti-tax activists have already filed a lawsuit over how the project is being funded.
Since the proposal is being classified as a state public works plan, it does not need city approval, despite the parks involved being located within the city limits. It only needs passage from the California Coastal Commission. Edmiston has defended this choice because he said the city of Malibu does not support regional parks, although city officials deny having this opinion. Edmiston has also said an EIR is not needed for this project, and the plan will get a more intense environmental review from the Coastal Commission staff prior to its recommendation to the commission voting body.
City officials say this proposal is too large to qualify as a public works plan and must go through a city approval process, including an application for General Plan amendments.
Much of the conflict over the plan has centered on fire safety. Property owners living near the parks say that despite campfires being prohibited, the risk still exists, and the narrow roads leading to the areas are difficult to access by emergency personnel. Some have criticized the residents’ arguments as a cover for their real opposition-they do not want inner-city children coming near their homes.
“Malibu is an easy target for stereotypes,” Hogin said. “It’s easy to paint Malibu as anti-access and create a straw-man to beat up. I think once those stereotypes fall away and we have the substantive discussion about our shared goals, we can be a good partner with the conservancy.”
Mayor Ken Kearsley said on Tuesday, “We’re 98 percent there with them. This is good for everybody. We’re not against campers. We think campers should be in places that are not so elbow-to-elbow with residential housing. We’re not against trails, we want to increase trails.”
In addition to the suit challenging the funding of the plan and the city’s potential suit regarding how the plan is being processed, a third suit could come from the Ramirez Canyon property owners over the process and the actual details of the plan. Their attorney, Steve Amerikaner, has said in the past that is a possibility.
“What bothers me the most about this is that a judge is going to decide this,” Kearsley said. “We know more than a judge. A judge does not have time to learn about all of this. That is terrible public policy.”