Does Malibu really want to protect its environment or not? All the recent public surveys have shown that Malibu citizens overwhelmingly desire to protect our environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
The Mission Statement of our General Plan commits us to ensuring the physical and biological integrity of Malibu’s environment. The General Plan goes on to state that ESHAs shall be protected “over development and against any significant disruption of habitat values.” It states in no uncertain terms that nature, in all its unique character here, will be of prime consideration when development issues arise.
John Burton, president pro tempore of the California state Senate and Robert Hertzberg, speaker emeritus of the California State Assembly, have both recently encouraged Malibu to swiftly adopt an LUP under the aegis of the Coastal Commission and Assembly Bill 988.
We had dragged our feet for years on this submission, but after the year 2000 Land Use Plan was submitted, the new City Council withdrew it. The state of California, which mandates that every city must, in a timely fashion, submit a Local Coastal Plan, was growing tired of being an arbiter for land use conflicts in Malibu. The state, as indicated by Burton and Hertzberg, wants Malibu to have its own local control, but we can’t do this until we have an LUP. Such is the intent of AB 988. It is pushing us into the enactment of an LUP, which should have been sent to the state years ago. The state government would never have been so heavily involved if the new City Council had not withdrawn the year 2000 LUP before the required due date. Blame ourselves!
A serious issue raised here is the perceived intent of certain interests in Malibu to gut the leadership of the environmentally sensitive members on the Coastal Commission and to replace them with more developmentally oriented individuals. This can be done through political influence peddling and the appointment process. Much of Malibu has been stirred up over the Land Use Plan issue and this hysteria is unfortunately being spread like a disease to other California cities. We have been responsible for our quandary over the LUP, not the state.
We must believe in the environmental protections of the Coastal Act of 1976 and not try to tear it apart to the tune of powerful development interests who care primarily about property rights and profits. Let us be true caretakers in Malibu of our precious land and ocean resources.
Ronn Hayes