Threat of Lawsuit Undeters City Council's Exploration of Land Swap

A Malibu City Council woman called Brown Act allegations leveled by the Malibu Township Council an attempt to merely slow down a proposed land swap.

"It’s very difficult for me to not see this Brown Act thing as a way to slow something down that you’re not in favor of," Malibu Councilwoman Laura Zahn Rosenthal said. "Just be honest about it. That’s OK to want to slow things down."

Under the proposed swap, the city of Malibu would gain ownership of 83 acres of Bluffs Park in exchange for Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) control over 532 acres at Charmlee Wilderness Park.

Not long after rescinding its direction to explore a proposed land swap Monday, the Malibu City Council voted to redirect City Attorney Christi Hogin to continue looking into it. Specifically, they asked her to explore fire safety measures on camping in Charmlee Wilderness Park and find out if ball fields can be built at Bluffs Park.

By voting to "cure and correct" the land swap vote from Jan. 14, council members hoped to avoid a lawsuit from the Malibu Township Council over allegations that three council members violated the Brown Act in early discussions over the swap.

Malibu Township Council attorney Frank Angel said after the meeting the council's action was transparent and that they will still be pursuing a lawsuit on Brown Act and California Public Records Act violations.

He claimed that Councilwoman Joan House has not handed over her emails and other documents related to early discussions over the land swap. He said messages from other council members show some do exist.

His associate, Jessica Cheng, said during the meeting that the cure proposed by City Attorney Christi Hogin was a "sham."

"The proposed cure does nothing to let the sun shine on the city council's challenged actions," Cheng said. "In fact, the city attorney's report makes no effort to disguise disdain for the recommended action, with its liberal use of quotation marks when describing the proposed 'cure' of 'rescinding' the Jan. 14 action."

Cheng sent a follow-up letter Tuesday to the city, stating that "the action taken on this item does not constitute a proper cure-and-correct of the violations of the Brown Act."

The council had previously voted to reject the MTC's request to "cure and correct" the decision, believing that no Brown Act violation occurred.

Hogin said her recommendation to the city council changed when the MTC put out a call to the community on March 29 for funds for the lawsuit.

"I don’t think there was a violation and I think it was cured, if there was on Jan. 14," Hogin said. "There is no harm in extending the courtesy."

Councilman John Sibert reiterated that no deal has been made.

"I don’t think it makes sense to say you can’t even think about this," Sibert said. "I think that’s wrong. I think we do need to think about this and discuss it in the open."

Mayor Lou La Monte bristled at community members, some of whom yelled out challenges during the vote.

"I know more about this issue probably than any of you out there," La Monte said. "I don’t have enough information to make a decision."

As part of the vote, the council will consider any information gathered by city staff on the proposed land swap at a future council meeting.