City biologists differ with commission’s science
By Kevin Culwell/Special to the Malibu Times
The scientific theory underlying the California Coastal Commission’s plan to designate most of Malibu as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) came under attack by city-hired biological consultants speaking before the City of Malibu at last week’s council meeting.
The scientists were brought in by the city to study the Coastal Commission’s staff biologist’s report, which said it was necessary to designate most of Malibu under its draft Land Use Plan as an ESHA and warned “if it (Malibu) is to continue as an intact ecosystem, it must be left intact, and its ecological functions preserved to the maximum extent possible.”
“It appears all open land will be determined to be an ESHA,” said Lloyd Zola, planner biologist for L.S.A. Associates, the diversified environmental consulting firm hired by the City of Malibu. “This, from a planning standpoint, is a very backward way of going.”
Some believe that this would shift the burden to any property owner to prove their property was not in an ESHA.
Rob Schonholtz, biologist for L.S.A. Associates, said the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has not effectively defined what it means by an ESHA, and subsequently the CCC could designate areas that have no justification being labeled in that manner.
The two-man scientific team suggested some solutions. Instead of declaring all of Malibu as an ESHA, they proposed that resource-oriented management teams be created to investigate and identify specific areas where the ESHA’s designation would be applicable, where the habitat types were especially valuable. They also said a concrete definition of ESHA should be written into the Land Use Plan (LUP) rather than leaving it as a loose generic definition.
Without these specific definitions a “nightmare of a review” may come about when Malibu residents go pleading their case to the city, claiming their land should not be designated as ESHA, Zola said.
“It’ll leave the city in the untenable position of administering” a difficult law, Zola said. “It’ll cost Malibu in public support once people become aware of what it entails.”
Mayor Pro Tem Kenneth Kearsley said to the scientists, “Essentially, you think the CCC has cheapened the definition of an ESHA.”
They both agreed.
The City of Malibu is not alone in its opposition to the broad-brush approach to defining ESHAs attempted by the Coastal Commission. Recently, in a dispute over a house in Topanga in unincorporated Los Angeles County area, the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning challenged the Coastal Commission’s staff in language highly similar to Malibu’s and indicated their “strong objection to several aspects of the (CCC) staff report.” They charged that Coastal staff incorrectly designates the site as an ESHA and made accusations with terms like “no factual scientific basis” and further charged the Coastal staff report contains “unsupported conclusions and conclusionary statements that are not supported by an analysis.”
Summing it up, Mayor Jeff Jennings said, “[The Coastal Commission] is going to find it difficult not having flexibility in determining what’s an ESHA.”
In other news from the City Council meeting, plans moved forward for the council moving from its temporary location on Civic Center Way to the 16,000 square foot space at 23815 Stewart Ranch Road, behind the old Miramar building.
The move, set possibly for the end of August, will be another temporary location for the council as a future city hall building is still in the process of being planned.
A 15-year lease for the space is being negotiated, with two five-year out clauses after the first five years to be implemented, giving the city “flexibility to exit gracefully” if need be, said Katie Lichtig, city manager.
“This is the best deal going until we can get our own spot,” Kearsley said.
Also in negotiation is space for a senior citizen center.
“I’m thrilled we’re tipping our hats to the seniors,” said Joan House, city councilmember.