To Edward Vaill’s question, “Why is Chair Sara Wan’s home on Carbon Mesa excluded from Coastal Commission designation as being an ESHA area . . .” If he had bothered to read the latest LCP/LUP Initial Draft dated January 20, 2002 and not just look at the pictures, he would have read on Page 49, paragraph 3.4 “any area not designated on the LUP ESHA map that meets the ESHA criteria is ESHA and shall be accorded all the protection provided for ESHA in the LCP.” Upon further reading, he would have discerned on Page 50 paragraph 3.7 “if a site-specific biological study, prepared pursuant to Policy 3.35 contains substantial evidence that an area previous mapped as ESHA, . . .the city biologist and Environmental Review Board shall review available site-specific information to determine if the area in question should no longer be considered ESHA and not subject to the ESHA protection policies of the LUP.” 3.35 applies only to new development as do virtually all ESHA issues.
All of these positions appear to be reasonable and in conformance to the General Plan of the City of Malibu which states as follows: “Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.”
“CON Policy 1.1.10: The City shall maintain an Environmental Review Board (ERE) as a technical advisory committee as specified in the Land Use Element to ensure the protection of natural resources.”
I believe Chair Wan’s home is in an ESHA and was not properly indicated in the previous mapping (along with other significant areas in Malibu). I believe that the city biologist along with the Environmental Review Board should review her property to discern whether it is, or is not, in an ESHA.
Ozzie Silna