The final public hearing before the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy votes on its Malibu parks plan becomes heated; local attorney says at least two people were paid to attend the hearing in favor of the plan.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Accusations of racism flew and speakers were taunted Monday night during the final public hearing held at Webster Elementary School by the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy before a vote takes place on its proposal to enhance three of its Malibu parks.
Malibu residents who are against the conservancy’s plan were accused of racism, while opponents to the plan claimed it was ill conceived and accused the conservancy of avoiding a proper public hearing to push it through. Meanwhile both pro and con speakers were booed several times at the hearing attended by more than 100 people.
For several months the SMMC and its sister organization, the Mountains Conservation and Recreation Authority, have been working on a plan to enhance the conservancy-owned parkland at Ramirez Canyon, Escondido Canyon and Corral Canyon. It calls for the establishment of overnight camping grounds and the development of a trails system that would include the parks at Zuma/Trancas Canyon and Solstice Canyon. Although there has been some opposition to the trail system because some of it conflicts with Malibu’s Trails Master Plan, much of the outcry has been about the overnight camping. Although campfires would not be allowed, the residents say that would be impossible to enforce, and fear there is a great fire risk.
“I’ve never been camping where I didn’t light a fire, that’s the whole point,” said Corral Canyon resident Kate Novotny, who suggested that the recently state-purchased Soka University property in Calabasas would be a better idea for a camping ground.
Many other speakers, some of whom said they have expertise with fires, said the plan proposed a severe risk for the local residents because Malibu is fire-prone and that it is difficult for firefighters and other emergency responders to access the parks. But some of the speakers, most of whom were not from Malibu, said the residents were opposed to the plan because they did not want outsiders coming into the area.
“What it really is about, it’s about keeping folks out that you’re uncomfortable with,” said Charles Thomas, head of Outward Bound Adventures, an organization that conducts environmental education programs for low-income and at-risk children, many of whom are minorities. “It’s about keeping out the kinds of kids that I work with.”
Thomas’ comments were met with shouts of anger from Malibu residents in the audience. The same treatment was given to many who spoke in opposition to the plan from the proponents. Often speakers were taunted, with some barely able to talk over the noise.
SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston was not safe from the wrath of the crowd either. While Malibu Mayor Ken Kearsley was speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting about his opposition to the plan, Edmiston attempted to verbally spar with him about the necessity of an environmental impact report for the project (with Edmiston saying one was not necessary and Kearsley disagreeing). Several people shouted that Edmiston was wasting everybody’s time and loud boos echoed throughout the room at the school.
Also during the meeting, Steve Amerikaner, an attorney for the Ramirez property owners, said the SMMC was not conducting a fair public process for the plan. He pointed to the fact that the first portion of the final draft proposal was not made available until early last week, with another 208 pages not placed on the Internet until Saturday. And a traffic study was still not available for public review when The Malibu Times went to print on Tuesday evening. Also, Amerikaner said it was unfair that the hearing was taking place in one night, with public speakers being rushed to finish their speeches because Webster could only be open until 10 p.m. (the meeting was extended to 10:30 p.m.)
On Tuesday, Amerikaner issued a statement saying he spoke to two people after the hearing Monday night who told him they had been paid to come to the hearing in support of the parks plan, and were told Malibu planned to close all its parks to the public.
“Neither one would agree to go on record nor give me their names,” Amerikaner wrote. “But, both were clearly distressed that they had been lied to by the people who invited and paid them to attend the hearing. If any conservancy staff were involved in ‘packing the hall’ with paid speakers, brought there under false pretenses, they should be fired.”
When asked about this, Edmiston said he was unaware of any payments being made. Amerikaner said in an interview on Tuesday afternoon that the men did not tell him who paid them, and he declined to speculate.
The SMMC board will vote on the plan next Wednesday at the Sooky Goldman Nature Center in Beverly Hills’ Franklin Canyon Park, located at 2600 Franklin Canyon Drive. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. Edmiston said on Tuesday that there will be a public hearing, but it might be limited in time because the conservancy board did not get a chance to discuss the proposal at Monday’s hearing.
The plan, which is officially called the Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan-Public Works Plan, does not require city review. It only needs approval from the SMMC board and the California Coastal Commission, another reason for local opposition.
Next week’s issue of The Malibu Times will include an in-depth analysis of what is included in the proposal. Although the newspaper is dated for Thursday, it will be available throughout the city by late Wednesday morning. To review the portions of the plan that are currently available, visit www.mrca.ca.gov.