City Council Maps Out a Lobbying Strategy to Get Its Way with CCC

• Some Municipal Observers Wonder Whether Announcing Strategy Will Rile Commissioners

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council, at its meeting this week, decided to take the advice of former council members and get into the game of lobbying the California Coastal Commission to get the panel to vote for what it wants.

The CCC turned down a development agreement calling for ball fields at the Winter Mesa site, known to old-timers as the Crummer property, when the city’s Local Coastal Program Amendment was modified by the commissioners disallowing active recreation on a 1.75 acre site for ball fields in exchange for allowing a five-home subdivision of 11,000-square-foot homes. Most of the LCPA was approved by the Coastal Commission, but not the ball fields sought by the city for vacant land near the Bluffs Park.

Former Councilmembers Jeff Jennings and Joan House, in a somewhat unusual move, had previously come to council chambers and urged members to hire a lobbyist and delegate the mayor and mayor pro tem to meet face to face with the panelists and urge the commissioners to give back what was “taken” from Malibu. The council unanimously agreed to do just that.

Their advice, according to the pair, was based on their successful lobbying of coastal panelists in the past for acquiring the ball fields at Bluffs Park.

At the same time, the council unanimously agreed to put off any decision about what to do about the modified LCPA that can be rejected or resubmitted.

The council agreed to delay a decision for four weeks, ostensibly until after lobbying efforts begin.

Councilmember Laura Rosenthal said it was unacceptable for the city to end up with a passive park and that it is important to negotiate with the commissioners.

Councilmember Lou La Monte said he thought there was a mistake made. “The train was rolling along and hit a bump and went off the track,” he said. “The ball fields are important for the city. It’s a great deal for the Coastal Commission. They get the $2 million mitigation fee. It is a great deal for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. They get seven deeded acres. It is a great deal for the [developer]. But it is not a great deal for the city,” he said.

Councilmember John Sibert said the city needed the council members talking to the coastal commissioners.

Council members were urged by developers, land use consultants, who deal with the commission everyday and the applicant that the situation was unusual and they believed under the circumstances the commissioners would be open to lobbying by the city in urging them to do a turnaround.

The pot for the city was sweetened by the applicant’s representative who said they wanted the city to resubmit the LCPA accepting all the CCCs modifications and seeking to remove the passive park and gate restrictions, the commission had also eliminated the security gates. Robert Gold, speaking on behalf of AZ Winter Mesa, LLC, the property owner seeking the permits and entitlements, said they would pay the city $1 million even if the commissioners would not change their minds.

“The passive park came out of left field,” Gold agreed.

 Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich said she thought the council was told the value of the land and improvements for the ball fields amounted to $3.5 million. “I would like to see if we can get more public benefits,” she said.

When it was time to call for a vote, the council agreed unanimously to spend $20,000 for a lobbyist and delegate Mayor Jefferson Wagner and Mayor Pro Tem John Sibert to lobby the Coastal Commission.