SMMC Attorney Engages in War of Words with City Council Members

• Called Elitists and Threatened with Litigation over Plan

BY BILL KOENEKER

It wasn’t when an attorney representing the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy posed the threat of litigation over the Malibu City Council unanimously approving a motion to encourage the California Contract Cities Association to oppose the Conservancy’s public works plan that caused the greatest ire of some council members, it was when the SMMC lawyer called city officials elitists and accused them of making efforts to keep visitors out of the mountains and Malibu.

“It will widen the rift between the city and the Conservancy. You will widen the scope of the fight,” said A. Catherine Norian, who told council members the action they were about to take would enhance the notion of the exclusivity of municipal officials and this was the best evidence yet of the downside of local control. “The motion is ill advised and was initiated by a small group of homeowners.”

“Your remarks are most offensive. There is nothing elitist [about this action]. What we don’t want is special privilege,” said Councilmember Andy Stern. “To suggest that this is a way of keeping people out of the parks is offensive.”

Mayor Ken Kearsley said the comments were fallacious. “We invite 10 million visitors per year,” he said, explaining that the city’s Charmlee Park hosts inner city children and the disabled and offers a much more authentic experience “than six houses that were illegally built.”

The reference is to the former residence of Barbra Streisand, a multi-house compound where the SMMC maintains headquarters and offices and wants to provide a handicapped park and camping experience for the disabled.

“I don’t know who gave you your marching orders, but it is irresponsible what you said. You don’t win me over with your diatribe of hate,” added the mayor.
Councilmember Jeff Jennings said he wasn’t as offended by the remarks since it is the strategy used by other entities anytime the city opposes what the agency is doing. “We are called elitists,” he said.

Jennings said there was no effort on the part of the Conservancy to sit down with the city and discuss the plan. “We should have been discussing how the public works plan is not consistent with the Local Coastal Program and how that would not get changed,” he said without city participation.

Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said she was also not offended by the remarks because she is inured to being called elitist. She said her main concern is that the citizenry would want to hold municipal officials accountable. Barovsky said democracy becomes divisive when people who make the rules are unaccountable.

The plan calls for overnight camping in residential areas, trail acquisition and various other recreational facilities, including extensive event uses at Ramirez Canyon Park.

The entire plan would be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval in its entirety rather than having the city or a local entity approve permits on a project by project basis.The SMMC and the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Association, the local homeowner’s group, have been battling for years over the validity of activities at the former residential compound that was donated to the Conservancy.

This week’s action was taken by the city after it was revealed that mediation between the HOA and the Conservancy broke down, talks are at a standstill and the matter is headed back into court.

City Attorney Christi Hogin, in her report, noted how now might be thet time for municipalities “to determine whether these public works plans may be used in this manner, and if so, what role, if any, the affected local government will play. All member cities of the CCCA recognize the importance of maintaining local control, especially where state agencies seek to usurp the authority of the local, elected city councils.”

The controversy over the public works plan has raged since the Ramirez Canyon homeowners and their attorneys revealed the hastily drawn up plans of the SMMC and its joint powers agency, the Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority several months ago.

The residents insist the plan will impose an independent planning area encompassing several square miles within the city limits and impose a new set of land use regulations not currently found on the city’s books.The city attorney said the plan has the direct effect to skip the Local Coastal Program and therefore skip the City of Malibu.

Steven Amerikaner, an attorney who represents the homeowners, told the council that the behavior witnessed was why their action was needed. “There is a lack of accountability. It is a regional agency that fairly does what it well wishes. The genesis of this dispute is a good example. The Conservancy said it didn’t need a permit. A judge said yes. It didn’t stop the Conservancy. They don’t follow the rules,” he concluded.