Despite numerous meetings, the City of Malibu is still very unhappy; showdown expected at the Jan. 10 meeting.
By Arnold G. York/Publisher
Despite several extensive meetings over the last few months between Malibu City Council and California Coastal Commission representatives, there still appears to be a large gulf that separates the two sides as the commission hearing Jan. 10 deadline nears.
The hearing date is particularly significant because the Legislature, in its bill AB988, set Jan. 15, 2002 as the date for the commission to prepare and submit to the city an initial draft of the Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP). Then, after public hearings and consultation with the city, the Coastal Commission has to certify a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for Malibu no later than Sept. 15, 2002.
But the hearing set for this Thursday, which was only to deal with an initial plan, has taken on added significance because Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, in what some observers call a classic bureaucratic maneuver, has also proposed that the commission also adopt findings. If the Coastal Commission goes along with his proposal, then this so-called initial plan will pretty much become the final plan. This will have effectively cut the City of Malibu out of the dialogue on the final LUP and LCP.
The way city representatives now see it, and several have asked not to be quoted by name, the Coastal Commission, and particularly Douglas, intends to keep control of what happens in Malibu for the next decade or two. The extensive plan the Coastal Commission is proposing for Malibu would have broad impacts on not only vacant land that hasn’t yet been developed, but also a large number of homes ,both beachfront and hillside, that have existed for years.
In what appears to be an attempt to avoid a total breakdown between Malibu and the Coastal Commission, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, in a recent letter to the commission, said, “I urgently ask that you seriously consider submitting the draft LUP to the city without adopting findings … Several substantial matters remain unresolved.” And, to add emphasis, she went on, “I am very concerned that, if findings are adopted at this time, the city’s options will be severely limited in a way not contemplated in the time frame set out in AB988. I don’t think that any of us want that to happen.”
However, several city representatives charge that is precisely what Douglas wants to happen.
One of the “substantial matters remaining unresolved” is the Coastal Commission’s proposal for significant expansion of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), which would place most of Malibu, whether beach or inland, into an ESHA or an ESHA buffer area. This would substantially limit what people can do with their land or homes.
Another issue is the question of the general public’s right to beach and mountain access. Many communities in Malibu would be affected by this, because sometimes beach access can only be made through privately maintained neighborhood roads like in Serra Retreat, Malibu Colony, Malibu Cove Colony and many similarly situated neighborhoods.
The Coastal Commission has remained steadfast in its determination to punch open a beach access about every 1,000 feet. It has also extended its idea of access to include public street parking, and requiring parking in commercial and shopping areas for beach visitors. This despite the city’s many reservations about control the commission wants to exercise over Malibu streets and about the questionable legality of trying to compel these kinds of dedications.
In several areas of Malibu, a number of neighborhood groups and beach communities are already gathering for the political and legal fight that most of them see coming. To counter this, the Coastal Commission has launched its own public relations campaign, as evidenced by several recent articles in the Los Angeles Times, which seeks to portray Malibu as a community of rich, selfish elitists determined to keep out as many visitors as possible.
At Thursday’s meeting, the city plans on asking the Coastal Commission not to make any final decisions, but to allow additional time for both the city and commission to review the almost 2-inch thick plan and accompanying comments, many parts of which are still unclear, and to try and fine tune the language. Since the city will ultimately be the one required to enforce whatever is passed, it wants to avoid a document that has many obvious legal questions that will inevitably be challenged in court. The city is fearful the Coastal Commission, which has the free services of the attorney general’s office to represent the commission in court, is almost cavalier in its disregard for some of the potentially great legal expenses it could be forcing onto the city, and that it is being plunged into a political and legal thicket.
As if to underline the many differences and the potential complexity of some of these issues, Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin has presented the Coastal Commission with a 22-page legal memorandum outlining the city’s position on many of these issues.
On Thursday, the Coastal Commission will either vote to submit its plan to the city and make no findings, which means it’s willing to keep on negotiating, or it will push all the way and make findings, which means this will be a fight to the death–and all will head for the courts and November’s election.