some good,some bad, most still uncertain
By Arnold G. York/Publisher
The general consensus of the City of Malibu and other observers at last week’s California Coastal Commission hearing was that the city had made some progress at this hearing and the commissioners, and even in some instances the staff itself, were more amenable to trying to work things out.
At the hearing, the latest draft of the controversial Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for Malibu was discussed in detail.
There were a number of things, like water and wastewater issues, that appeared to be working themselves out. And for the first time, city officials were expressing some optimism, perhaps guarded, but still optimism. There are still a number of issues to be resolved. Many of the issues are uncertain because the commissioners took very few votes. But in most cases, over the two days of hearings, the commissioners gave the commission staff an idea of what they wanted and sent them back to try and work out the details with all the parties, primarily the City of Malibu. The issues on the table are:
Bluffs Park
The Coastal Commission decided to pull the matter out of the Malibu LCP altogether and leave what it calls a “white hole.” At some later date, after the parties work out a deal, the City of Malibu, the California Department of State Parks and Recreation, Crummer Trust and probably the Little League will have to come back to the commission for an amendment to the LCP to get the official approval of the deal.
Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs)
This is still a major area of disagreement between the Coastal Commission, the City of Malibu and others, including the County of Los Angeles.
The commission says coastal sage in the low-lying areas nearer the ocean and chaparral higher up in the hills are endangered and, therefore, so is the wildlife, and needs to be protected to protect biodiversity. Therefore, development has to be severely limited in ESHAs or areas adjacent to ESHAs, which means most of Malibu and almost all of the hills above.
The city and county say the theory is questionable, the science supporting it is weak and, in any event, there are less draconian ways to handle the perceived problem by being more site-specific rather than one size fits all. The commission sent staff back to work with the city to try and do some site-specific identifications of ESHA areas and come up with a list of areas that are not in ESHAs.
Scenic highway views
This was the sleeper provision. If your house can be seen from a public road (which includes PCH, Malibu Canyon Road, Kanan Dume Road and others), a public park, a trail, a public parking lot, or by anyone in state waters (which could mean two guys sitting in a rowboat fishing two miles off the shore), it would be considered a scenic viewshed and would limit the development envelope to 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the lot, whichever was the lesser.
Questions rose about why and whether this would cover new construction or remodels, or just anyone needing a permit for, say, clearing brush. The commission balked and sent the provision back to staff with instructions to redo the entire chapter.
Down zoning of multifamily homes
The coastal plan originally down-zoned multifamily homes (read apartments) in east Malibu and on Malibu Road, but the city battled back that it was ridiculous to try and ultimately force the elimination of what little rental stock there is in the city. The commission agreed and relented. However, it did downzone a number of parcels in the hills, from RR20 to RR40.
Second Units
You are allowed a second unit (sometimes called a Granny flat) on an RR1 single-family lot, and state law limited it to 1,250 square feet in size. The Coastal Commission, however, has long held it will only permit a unit of no more than 750 square feet. The commission instructed staff to increase the size to 900 or so square feet.
Beach access and trails
The commission made it clear it was not going to bend on anything related to beach access or possible prescriptive easements. It wants the city to make findings that there are no historic or prescriptive easements present before permits are issued. The city maintains only courts can adjudicate issues like that, not the city.
Horses, horses facilities and agriculture
The commission was clear to staff that it was sympathetic to horses and the part they played in the recreational use of the mountains as well as the agricultural uses of the land, and wanted staff to come back with a more accommodating set of rules. The specifics revolve around whether or not horse facilities are allowed and whether they’re confined to the fuel modification zones (which may not be large enough to handle horses, corrals, tack rooms), and also what gets counted in the 10,000 square foot or 25 percent limitations.
Temporary Use Permits
A permit is required for anything that could impact sandy beach or impact “public access,” like having a party where your guests park on the street near a public trail. The commission sent it back to be clarified and made more specific, and to be clear enough to give people notice of what’s expected.
Retained jurisdiction and appeals
The proposed staff plan appears to have all sorts of strings to give the Coastal Commission continuing jurisdiction over old permits, future changes in old permits and many future city decisions that could still be appealed to the commission. The Coastal Commission wants a stream of paperwork relating to things like city-required deed restrictions to be going from the city to Coastal for review and approval. The city’s position is that it wants the ground rules specifically enumerated, not vague amorphous language because, ultimately, we want Coastal out of our hair.
The final hearing is slated for September.