Malibu Planning Commission Recommends Approval of Conservancy Plans

• Critics Voicing Brushfire and Other Public Safety Concerns Are Overruled

BY BILL KOENEKER

Despite opposition from the leaders of a park docents group, neighbors and others, the City of Malibu Planning Commission last week recommended approval of a controversial parks and trails plan sought by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy that includes overnight camping in Charmlee Wilderness Park.

The plan in the form of a Local Coastal Program amendment will be heard by the city council on Nov. 13 and subsequently certified by the California Coastal Commission at a later date.

To underscore the importance of the meeting to the municipality, City Attorney Christi Hogin, who has not officiated at a planning commission meeting in several years, acted as the panel’s counsel.

SMMC executive director Joe Edmiston, in a move that was also symbolic, appeared in full ranger uniform and spoke to the planning panel.

“There is no place to own or rent property [in Malibu] not at a considerable cost. There is no place for just plain folk to look out over arguably the most beautiful vista in the country,” Edmiston said, in explaining the rationale for providing more camping in the coastal canyons.

He also talked about the initial mistrust between the city and the state agency.

“There was no question we were apprehensive, but were told there was a real advantage going through the city process. I was not a believer. I asked our attorney, ‘Are we going to be screwed?’” the Conservancy head said.

However, Edmiston said in the last six months he changed his mind and believes the ongoing treatment by the city has been “a fair and unbiased process because of the good work of the staff and the good work and will of the people on the dais tonight.”

Commissioners, who made several recommendations in approving the plans, were told there would be a total of eight campsites in Charmlee, and one of those would be an Americans with Disabilities Act camp.

There would be a total of 16 camping sites in Corral Canyon Park, and the addition of several connector trails.

The Ramirez Canyon Park improvements would include three ADA day use areas and two ADA campsites. The city staff had suggested the elimination of three sites for new hike-in camping in the meadow area, and the addition of several connector trails.

Plans also include three parking spaces in an area along the shoulder of Kanan Dume Road and a half-mile connector trail from Kanan to Ramirez Canyon Park.

There would be no overnight camping in either Solstice Canyon Park or Escondido Canyon Park, according to testimony before the planning panel.

Edmiston was grilled by the commissioners about the need for additional recreational camping facilities in the coastal area, given the proliferation of campsites in Point Mugu State Park and Leo Carrillo State Park and the tent camping sites at the Malibu Beach RV Park. Camping is also allowed in Malibu Creek State Park.

The Conservancy head was also asked how the campsites would be patrolled and about the number of rangers available to do this. Edmiston said there are 24 armed rangers that patrol the 50,000 acres administered by the SMMC and its sister agency, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.

Almost all of the other speakers who testified before the commission were in opposition to the plan, citing the danger of fire despite being reassured that there would only be what is called “cold camping,” which is described as no campfires allowed.

Residents in other areas of Malibu were also opposed to various aspects of the plan. Steven Amerikaner, an attorney who represents the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund, focused on the expanded activities that are allowed by the plan for the Conservancy, which is headquartered in Ramirez Canyon Park. “Will the planning commission be a rubber stamp?” he asked.

Amerikaner also told the commissioners that the amendment sought by the SMMC is not consistent with Malibu’s Local Coastal Program. He explained that was nearly the very thing the organization had successfully litigated with the SMMC and won at the appellate level—that its coastal permit was not consistent with the LCP.

Other property owners complained about the plan, calling for more parking in Escondido area and insisted the parking lot “would pave over paradise.”

When it came time for the commissioners to deliberate, they mainly posed questions to either Edmiston or Hogin and the staff about the particulars of camping, fire dangers, parking and activities at Ramirez Canyon Park.

Chair Regan Schaar told her colleagues she thought the most productive path would be for the commissioners to talk about what they liked or did not like in the plan and make recommendations based on those assertions.

To speed the process along, the city attorney ticked off a list of recommendations she had assembled while the commissioners were asking questions and used those as a springboard for suggested revisions. The planning panelists concurred, and the changes were incorporated into the unanimous recommendation for approval.

Commissioners want to see an audit to determine if the camping uses continue to be needed incorporated into the procedure and also the requirement of a needs assessment as part of an application for a permit for both new camping and parking areas.

Panelists insisted that the plan adopt a specific definition of “cold camping” that includes requirements for the use of battery-operated lights and other technologies that do not include a flame or flammable liquid, such as kerosene, that prohibit the use of charcoal and clear definitions of permitted cooking approaches.

Additionally, the planning panelists wanted a determination as to where campsites would be located to make sure there was no adverse impacts on wildlife corridors.

Other revisions include approval of a new parking lot at Escondido only when a demand study indicates that additional parking is required and expansion of the existing lot is infeasible or inadequate; coordination of bus trips to assure no unnecessary increase in traffic on Point Dume; a requirement that park signs be in English and Spanish: and use of the most restrictive agency’s determination of “red flag” or increased fire hazard warning system; and encouragement of the construction of a road connecting Kanan Dume to Ramirez Canyon Park in connection with any increased activities in the park.

Commissioner Les Moss was the only panelist to speak at length about why he was voting for a recommendation of approval and also how the speakers on the controversial subject had influenced his vote.

He talked about his own experiences with the fire of 1978 and how residents are always fearful of fire. He said he wanted to remind the speakers that all of the panelists are longtime members of the community and their voices were not “some outside source.”

Moss also talked about the cause of the major fires that burned in Malibu and that to his knowledge none of them were started by campers. “It doesn’t appear that the fires start in the park,” he said, adding that the opponents were complaining about seven campsites in Charmlee “not 70 or 700.”

Commissioner Joan House agreed, saying a lot of the protest was based on misinformation or assertions not found in the plan. “I support what the facts are in the proposed amendment,” she added.

Commissioner Carol Randall said the concerns of the community were listened to, but that she did not believe there is a lack of support for the proposal overall throughout the community.