Council Votes to Take SMMC to Court over Its Public Works Plan

• City’s Challenge Centers on CEQA Compliance

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu City Council members voted in closed session this week to legally challenge the proposed public works plan recently approved by the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority for submittal to the California Coastal Commission. City Attorney Christi Hogin made the announcement at the start of the council meeting Monday night. Council members made no comment about the action.

The controversial plan has been met by harsh criticism from many Malibu residents who have verbally sparred with other outside recreational interests on the fate of the coastal canyons involved in the trails and camping plan during public hearings.

The plan calls for linking five Conservancy properties and a National Park Service holding with a multi-use trail, including overnight camping and additional activities at Ramirez Canyon Park where the SMMC is headquartered.

Hogin said the basis of the lawsuit, which the council directed her to file, is that the state agency failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. “An Environmental Impact Report is required,” said Hogin, who added, “The Conservancy does not acknowledge that CEQA applies.”

The city attorney noted that many of the substantive issues of the plan involve uses of property that are not owned by the Conservancy. “They are not in the scope of the plan and require a Local Coastal Program amendment or a permit,” he said.

However, Hogin held out a conciliatory note. “We are really hopeful we can avoid the situation where two agencies are dueling it out in court. We have shared goals. The number one priority is to see if we can work out something,” the city attorney added.

The head of the SMMC, Joe Edmiston, has argued that the entire process of the public works plan being submitted to the Coastal Commission will entail the environmental review the city is seeking. The SMMC executive director noted that the final submission to the coastal agency will include detailed technical analysis of its various components, including geology, mapping, grading, traffic engineering and accessibility.

Edmiston has insisted that a public works plan is like a Local Coastal Program and LCP certification does not require an EIR.

The city attorney countered that the state statute does not read that way. “The SMMC argument is a LCP or a LCP amendment are exempt. [They say] the public works plan should be regarded as exempt. But the statute does not say the public works plan is exempt. It only says the LCP is exempt,” Hogin said.