Just one week after the Malibu City Council voted to ignore allegations by a local civic group that it violated open meetings laws and press ahead with plans to explore a parkland swap, Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin is recommending the council reverse its decision after the group threatened the city with a lawsuit.
At the same time, Hogin is recommending the council reauthorize her to negotiate with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) about the swap, a move that Malibu Township Council (MTC) attorney Frank Angel called “pretty much a sham.”
The action up for reversal and reconsideration is a proposal to swap 532 acres of city-owned Charmlee Wilderness Park in western Malibu in exchange for 83 acres of Malibu Bluffs Park, which is controlled by SMMC.
In a letter submitted to the city March 8, Angel, on behalf of MTC, alleged that more than three members of the Malibu City Council were illegally aware of the potential swap before it was discussed in public on Jan. 14, in violation of the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act, an open meetings law.
The letter demanded the city stop all negotiations related to the controversial swap and not place it back on a council agenda until all swap-related documents and records from city officials had been made available to the public.
Under Hogin’s recommendation, the City Council voted 4-0 on March 25 to send a letter to Angel declining the “cure and correct” request from MTC. Hogin changed her mind, however, after learning that MTC had begun fundraising around town last week to help pay its attorney fees.
“At first I figured, well whatever, MTC was just making noise and was just registering a complaint,” Hogin said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “But then I see that they’re raising money for this thing and it’s such a silly thing to do.”
In a staff report released Tuesday, Hogin maintains the accusations are “baseless” and city officials did nothing wrong, but suggests that in order to save an estimated $20,000 on “wasteful and distracting litigation,” the council at its April 8 meeting should rescind a Jan. 14 decision to enter into talks to trade the parks. At the same time, she recommends it direct her once again to explore swap talks with the SMMC.
Hogin called her latest recommendation a “courtesy” to MTC in the hopes of both sides not having to spend money, time and resources on a lawsuit she deems unnecessary .
“It really is truly a waste of money, but at least the city will have extended the courtesy to them by rescinding its January action,” Hogin said.
Angel characterized the move as a waste of time.
“The approval of the same thing again Monday makes this pretty much a sham,” he said. “It’s only setting the decision aside and then reapproving it.”
Hogin said Angel’s request that the council not consider the park swap again until all swaprelated documents are made available to the public is not an option under the Brown Act.
“Under the Brown Act the only remedy that’s available is that we rescind the action that we took [on Jan. 14] and retake it [on April 8],” Hogin said.
She also said there was nothing for city to consider suspending.
“Why would we recommend we stop thinking about the swap for two weeks?” Hogin said. “What is MTC asking for, for everybody to stop thinking for a while?”
Angel argues Hogin’s report ignores the bulk of his requests and will do little to avoid litigation. “I doubt it’s going to make a difference,” he said. “…This is far too little, far too late.”
The proposal has drawn the ire of many residents who fear an increased wildfire risk if SMMC installs campsites at Charmlee, while others argue the park is a prized asset the city should retain. Proponents of the swap, including youth sports coaches, maintain that city jurisdiction over Bluffs Park would allow for the construction of several sports and recreational facilities, which they believe the city lacks.