Angered by the commission’s indifference to residents’ and city officials pleas to consider the risks of fire and other hazards, and approve a ban on overnight camping within city limits, the council authorizes the city attorney to file suit against the commission.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
The City of Malibu announced on Monday it will file a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission, challenging its rejection earlier this month of the city’s Local Coastal Program amendment to ban overnight camping, while approving an amendment by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy that would allow camping at three canyon parks.
The city has until Aug. 9 to file suit, and will do so at the end of July, City Attorney Christi Hogin said Tuesday in a telephone interview.
The commission at its 10-hour meeting June 10 in Marina Del Rey unanimously rejected the City of Malibu’s request to amend its Local Coastal Program, which included a proposed ban on overnight camping within city limits. It then subsequently approved an LCP amendment override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and its sister organization, Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority, that in effect gave approval of the Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan Overlay, which includes overnight camping at three Malibu canyon parks, as well as permission to have a certain number of events at one of the parks.
The parks enhancement plan, long opposed by numerous Malibu residents who say it increases the risk of fires, will create a total of 29 overnight camping sites at Ramirez, Escondido and Corral canyon parks; allow 32 special events (parties of up to 200 people) per year at the conservancy’s Ramirez Canyon property (donated by Barbara Streisand); and develop a 32-space parking lot at the top of Winding Way and improvements to local trails to create the Coastal Slope Trail that will connect the east and west ends of Malibu. Though the proposed plan would prohibit campfires, residents doubt the extent to which that rule would be enforced.
The commission-rejected amendment proposed by Malibu sought to change its Local Coastal Program-the state-drafted document that sets zoning and building standards for Malibu development-to ban overnight camping in parks and recreation areas within city limits. The city’s proposed LCP amendment also requested a requirement for the construction of a new access road into Ramirez Canyon from Kanan-Dume Road prior to the implementation of additional park uses at Ramirez Canyon Park.
Coastal Commissioners at the June 10 meeting said Malibu’s proposed amendment would decrease potential public access and recreation uses within the city. The commission staff report states the amendment is inconsistent with policies of the California Coastal Act, the primary law that governs the decisions of the Coastal Commission. The act outlines, among other things, standards for development within the Coastal Zone.
“We’ve got a number of complaints,” Hogin said. In addition to its misinterpretation of the Coastal Act, she said, “We don’t believe they [the commission] have sufficient information on environmental impacts because they’ve failed to follow the procedures required of them before they take action.”
An example of this, she said, was seen at the hearing after public testimonies when the commission “just threw in” the conservancy’s idea to include Bluffs Park as a potential campsite.
“That may or may not be a good idea because we have no idea [of any potential environmental impacts],” Hogin said. “There has not been any analysis of it.”
Hogin, voicing a sentiment by many Malibu residents, said the commission was biased and had decided to reject the city’s proposal long before the meeting even started.
Several commissioners exited the meeting room during testimonies by Malibu residents, and those who were present repeatedly conducted private conversations with other commissioners seated next to them.
“We think the courtroom is the worst place for government entities to resolve their differences, but as you saw at the Coastal Commission meeting, we were met with an absolute stonewall,” Hogin said. “Meanwhile, the Coastal Commission is taking helicopter rides with Joe Edmiston [executive director of the SMMC].”
Numerous residents at Monday night’s City Council meeting echoed Hogin’s sentiment and voiced their support of the lawsuit.
“It’s just amazing how the Coastal Commission demonstrated to us how well they can carry the water for Mr. Edmiston and his group,” Navy Banvard told the council. “I thought that was pretty disappointing. It makes me angry that we wasted our time now that minds were made up before we entered that hearing room.
“My sensibilities are to stay out of court,” he continued, “but I think that might be the only way the Edmiston crowd doesn’t get a pre-determined advantage.”
City authorizes suit against county
The City Council on Monday authorized City Attorney Christi Hogin to file a lawsuit, if necessary, against Los Angeles County, challenging its misuse of trust funds intended to pay for law enforcement services.
The county in 2007 and 2008 made withdrawals from the Liability Trust Fund to reimburse itself for the costs of settling three lawsuits that resulted from assaults made by an on-duty county Sheriff’s deputy in 2002 and 2003.
The Liability Trust Fund was created in 2004, when L.A. County agreed to provide services, including law enforcement, to cities of the California Contract Cities Association, which includes Malibu. The current agreement between the city and the county expires June 30. The CCCA has requested that its member cities extend the current agreement by one year to expire June 30, 2010 in order to provide additional time to address the disputes with regard to the withdrawals. However, the county has only agreed to extend the agreement to Aug 30.
The agreement also created an oversight committee and a claims board to oversee the operations of the fund and make recommendations regarding claims. The board and the committee disputed which agency should bear the legal and fiscal responsibilities related to the criminal acts, and in 2007 filed a claim with the county related to the withdrawals.