From his vacation in Europe, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy head Joe Edmiston says the conservancy legally gave bond money to its sister organization, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
An unidentified group of taxpayers who live in the Malibu area have accused the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy of illegally using nearly $400,000 in state bond money for the proposed project of its sister organization, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, to enhance three Malibu parks. The SMMC says it has done nothing wrong, and that it has the blessing of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
Newport Beach attorney Allison E. Burns sent a letter last week “on behalf of certain concerned taxpayers of Los Angeles County” to the state Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General requesting that at least one of the organizations file a lawsuit against the SMMC for having “violated numerous provisions of California law.” Burns wrote that if both offices decline to file a suit, then her clients would do so. She asked that the offices respond about their intentions no later than Oct. 17.
Burns said the SMMC violated state law this year by giving $385,000 of the $20 million it received in 2002 through the voter-approved Proposition 50 bond to the MRCA for a project to enhance its park properties on Ramirez Canyon, Corral Canyon and Escondido Canyon, and for the legal battle to defend the project. She said this is because the state Public Resources Code specifies the SMMC can only donate to certain kinds of entities, and the MRCA is not one of those. Also, she says Proposition 50 money can only be used for the “protection of the Santa Monica Bay and Ventura County coastal watersheds,” and not for park enhancement. Additionally, she said the money cannot be used to pay for attorney fees.
Speaking on the telephone from Europe where he was vacationing, SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston referenced a letter the SMMC received last month from the Office of the Attorney General that stated Proposition 50 money could be used for legal expenses and for its parks enhancement project.
“Whoever this Allison Burns is, she doesn’t have the backing of the attorney general,” Edmiston said. “Our actions have been validated by the attorney general, and we’re sticking to that.”
The Malibu Times e-mailed a copy of the letter referenced by Edmiston to Burns, who said she had never seen it. After reading the letter, she admitted it was unlikely the attorney general would be supporting her side, but she said, “Folks change their minds sometimes.” However, Burns said she believes the law is on her clients’ side and that they would prevail in a court battle.
The letter referenced by Edmiston was issued to the SMMC by Supervising Deputy Attorney General John A. Saurenman after his office had received a letter from attorney Steve Amerikaner, who represents Ramirez Canyon property owners. Amerikaner’s letter raised many of the same issues brought up by Burns. Amerikaner said this week that he supported Burns’ letter, and added that some of her anonymous clients were also clients of his, saying there was some “overlapping.” Burns said her clients would identify themselves if they ultimately file a suit against the SMMC. She would not specify if they lived in Malibu, but said they did live in the “Malibu area.”
The Ramirez Canyon property owners are already involved in one legal battle with the SMMC, and could be in two more before the year concludes. The property owners claim the SMMC cannot have its offices on the Ramirez Canyon property that was donated to it by Barbra Streisand in 1993 because the land is zoned for open space. A court hearing to decide the matter will be heard by a Simi Valley judge on Oct. 24. They also have claimed the parks enhancement plan is illegal because it violates Malibu’s Local Coastal Program on various grounds. The proposal only needs approval from the California Coastal Commission, and not the city. Amerikaner has stated that his clients might file a suit if the plan is approved. Also, the Ramirez Canyon property owners could join Burns’ likely suit, Amerikaner said.
Edmiston has accused the Ramirez property owners of being opposed to the parks enhancement project because it would bring many outsiders to Ramirez Canyon Park. He said the latest action by Burns is an example of “the extreme lengths the Ramirez Canyon property owners will go to avoid any kind of public access.” (However, Burns did not specify whether her clients were Ramirez Canyon property owners.)
Edmiston added, “The Ramirez Canyon residents can waste their money on attorneys all they want, and it won’t change the outcome. We’re dedicated to allowing public access onto Ramirez Canyon.”
He called Burns’ clients’ potential suit “frivolous.” And following what he said would be a likely win by the SMMC in court, the SMMC would attempt to force Burns’ clients to pay for the conservancy’s attorney fees because, in his opinion, they will have wasted taxpayers’ money.
However, Edmiston has not been on the winning end of most of his legal battles when it comes to Ramirez Canyon matters. After the SMMC obtained the Ramirez Canyon property, it initially used the site for parties and weddings. This stopped after the city won a lawsuit. The conservancy later obtained a coastal development permit to enhance the property, but the permit was set aside by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge after a lawsuit was filed by the Ramirez Canyon property owners.
Amerikaner has accused the SMMC’s parks enhancement plan to be another attempt for the state agency to use the Ramirez Canyon property for purposes it has already been told are not legal. The SMMC board will hold a meeting most likely next month to vote on the enhancement plan. If approved, which is expected, it will then be sent to the Coastal Commission for final approval.