Controversy erupts over Ramirez Canyon Park
One councilmember says Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Executive Director Joe Edmiston might be behind effort to leave city out of decision making over development of the park.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A lawyer representing Ramirez Canyon area property owners accused the Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority of trying “to do an end run around” Malibu city law through its development of Ramirez Canyon Park.
The MRCA held a hearing last week on what was called a Draft Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan/Public Works Plan. The plan involved three MRCA-owned parks: 22-acre Ramirez Canyon Park, 140-acre Escondido Canyon Park and 340-acre Corral Canyon Park. Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund attorney Steve Amerikaner said at Monday’s City Council meeting that the MRCA was trying to avoid the city’s Local Coastal Program regulations and do what it wants to do with Ramirez Canyon Park through this method, with the California Coastal Commission being the eventual decision maker on approving the plan.
The Coastal Commission granted a coastal development permit for use of Ramirez Canyon Park, which was donated to the MRCA in 1993 by Barbra Streisand, but the city of Malibu sued and eventually won at the Court of Appeal level to get the permit invalidated. The city was troubled by the MRCA’s use of the property for large gatherings and parties.
The MRCA had originally planned to petition the state Supreme Court to hear the case, but recently declined to do so.
Amerikaner said he was disturbed because the notice for last week’s hearing, he said, was only posted on the MRCA Web site the day before the hearing. Also, the only other hearing before the item goes before the Coastal Commission will be on June 26 in Burbank.
“If you hadn’t been watching the Web site every day, which we do because we worry about these types of things, you wouldn’t know [the proposal] was out there,” Amerikaner said.
He added that the only fair thing to do would be to have a hearing in Malibu that was properly noticed.
Amerikaner received sympathy from the council members. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Jennings accused Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Executive Director Joe Edmiston of being behind the actions.
“It’s hard to believe this was not a studied effort, a demonstration to put us [the city] in our place,” Jennings said.
Edmiston is out the country until next week and was not available for comment.
At the recommendation of the council, City Attorney Christi Hogin is writing a letter to send to the MRCA about the matter. In the draft copy of her letter that was released on Tuesday, she wrote, “The complete lack of notice and meaningful opportunity to comment on the [plan] does not comport with traditional notions of due process and does not satisfy the Authority’s legal obligations under the Coastal Act.”
Hogin further wrote that the MRCA plan is inconsistent with the city’s LCP because it calls for active recreation in Ramirez Canyon, while the area is designated for open space.
Council approves budget
Also on Monday, the council approved a nearly $31 million budget for the 2006-07 Fiscal Year. Included in the budget was a request by Jenkins & Hogin, the law firm that represents the city on a contract, for an increased fee for general legal counsel from $216,000 per year to $240,000 per year, the first request for an increase since the city hired the firm in 2001.
According to the staff report, the request was made to cover cost of living increases and the increased costs associated with legal work over the past several years.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich was the only council member who declined to support the request. She said she did not like it that it was an amendment to the budget, and she did not have time to review whether it was a sufficient request. Also, Conley Ulich asked the city manager to look into whether it would be more cost efficient for the city to hire an in-house attorney.
“It looks like we’d be paying somebody $240,000 and I wonder whether we could get a lawyer here who would be here more than 40 hours a week at a cheaper rate,” Conley Ulich said. None of her colleagues on the council supported Conley Ulich’s idea, and due to the lack of consensus, City Manager Jim Thorsen will not look into the matter as Conley Ulich asked.
“I remember having an in-house attorney and it just really didn’t work,” Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said. “We were constantly farming out to other firms, and the bills were horrendous.”
According to the city’s staff report, Jenkins & Hogin has done more than $142,000 in general legal work for the city on top of its normal fee during the past three years, and has not charged the city for it. However, according to city records, the firm charged the city $234,000 for general legal services in 2004-05, despite being budgeted for $216,000.
These costs do not include the amount of money Jenkins & Hogin receives for litigation work. The city spent $340,000 in 2004-05 and $155,000 this year.