The group filed a lawsuit against the Coastal Commission over its approval of a parks plan that would add 54 new overnight camping sites throughout Malibu.
By Paul Sisolak / Special to The Malibu Times
Since filing a lawsuit last month against the California Coastal Commission, opponents of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s Malibu parks plan have spoken out about the plan, asserting that it will destroy the quiet character of Ramirez Canyon Park.
Attorneys for the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund, comprised of roughly 100 canyon residents, are challenging commissioners for their unanimous approval in October of the Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Public Works Plan, which calls for 54 overnight camping sites throughout Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) land in Malibu, including 35 at Bluffs Park, 17 at Corral Canyon and two at Ramirez Canyon. The 22.5-acre SMMC property at Ramirez Canyon was formerly owned and later donated to the SMMC by Barbra Streisand. The SMMC, according to previous reports, can host up to 200 people, 16 times per year, at the Ramirez site.
Residents there, and their attorneys, are alleging that the intent to allow long-term overnight public camping, 12 day-use picnic areas and 17.5 miles of new recreational trails will invite noise and other impacts that can’t be mitigated.
“The noise is an issue,” said lawyer Tim Irons, who, along with former Malibu city attorney Steve Amerikaner, represents the plaintiffs. “The main issue is to protect this canyon neighborhood from new commercial and institutional uses at the property.”
Irons added that if the project is carried out as planned, it would require a widening of the main road leading up to Ramirez Canyon, which could potentially endanger the character of the road, as well as nearby trees, vegetation, wildlife and native habitat. The road, noted in the lawsuit, currently measures anywhere from 12 to 20 feet wide.
Irons said the Coastal Commission’s vote to green light the project betrayed the state Coastal Act, California Environmental Quality Act and other provisions, including a violation of the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP).
Both Irons and the lawsuit claim that the project does not fall in line with the LCP because it ignores the fact that commercial developments such as camping sites do not reflect that of a true public works plan, which the Coastal Commission can certify without approval from local city officials.
Rick Mullen, an eight-year Ramirez Canyon resident, one of 52 neighbors there and president of the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund, said the SMMC plan is a cash-grabbing scheme and goes against what the property was designed for when it was donated in 1993: open space, according to Mullen, and other lighter uses like weddings and retreats.
“They [the SMMC] need to generate money to maintain the property,” Mullen said. “This whole camping and public access thing is merely camouflage for what they want to do in terms of generating revenue.”
Mullen spoke for other residents at Ramirez Canyon, adding, “I know of nobody who does not feel like I do.”
The case already has a tangled history. Before attacking the Coastal Commission, the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund previously filed suit against the SMMC in 2009 (that case is still pending), and the City of Malibu has also pursued litigation.
Joe Edmiston, director of the SMMC, could not be reached for comment. An attorney for the Coastal Commission also could not comment in depth because he had not examined the lawsuit in full as of this paper’s Tuesday deadline.
“The filing of the lawsuit doesn’t have any immediate effect on the project,” said Christopher Pederson, deputy chief counsel for the commission.
However, Peter Douglas, Coastal Commission director, stated that there is “nothing surprising” about the Ramirez lawsuit. He said the development project is necessary because the need for camping and outdoor recreation in Malibu exceeds the supply currently available at the canyon.
“How many millions of young people are there in the metropolitan Los Angeles area who would benefit from an outdoor experience in nature?” he asked. “We’re very strongly supportive for kids to get outdoor education in nature and the outdoor experience. So many kids have none.”
Mullen said he believes the lawsuit has legs to halt the development.
“We’ve held our ground and held to it a long time,” he said. “I think in the end we’ll be victorious. It’s not going to be quick and easy when you’re taking an organization to a state court.”
Details on the SMMC enhancement plan can be found online in full at www.smmc.ca.gov.