At Malibu Valley Inn, it’s the cart before the horse

On Nov. 8, Calabasas residents will be asked by their city council to provide an “advisory” vote on whether or not the council should annex the proposed Malibu Valley Inn in the heart of the Santa Monica Mountains.

This massive hotel would include restaurant facilities, equestrian facilities, a health spa, tennis, and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

The ballot argument in support is signed by five individuals. The opposition argument is signed by the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Save Open Space/ Santa Monica Mountains, Sierra Club, and the Monte Nido Valley Homeowners Association.

My concern is the process that was jettisoned when the city council pulled the plug on the normal process of environmental review and put this controversial project on the ballot. This now appears to be the sequence of events.

The voters will not have a certified EIR before Nov. 8.

Ask them to vote anyway, based on what will surely be hotly contested campaigns of sound bites and spin. And then take the outcome of this “advisory” vote, and do what?

Presumably resume the environmental review process, which could change everything. What kind of pressure will the council feel to conform their decision to that of their residents, who voted without the benefit of the information in a certified EIR? Or will the council take an action contrary to what the voters “advised,” and base it on the information generated in the EIR that the voters never saw in the first place? Is either a desirable way to make land use decisions?

I spent 16 years on the Agoura Hills City Council, three terms as mayor, making the hard decisions when they came before me. I’m not aware of a city anywhere in the region that has put an advisory measure on the ballot asking their citizens to vote on a massive project before the project impacts are known.

The Calabasas Council should reconsider holding this costly election. If they will not, residents should vote “no.”

The California Environmental Quality Act was passed by the voters of this state 35 years ago for the specific purpose of identifying project impacts; providing mitigation measures for those impacts, if they can be mitigated at all; looking at all alternatives; and guaranteeing maximum informed public participation in the process. The public is best served by honoring CEQA. Louise Rishoff Agoura Hills