Final hearing on Malibu Local Coastal Plan takes place
The classic western gunfight at OK Corral-who will blink first, the California Coastal Commission or Malibu? Many controversial issues will be discussed and Malibuites are planning to head out in force to air their anger and discontent with the California Coastal Commission’s plans for Malibu.
By Arnold G. York/Publisher
Beginning Thursday this week, and probably going until Friday, the 12 members of the California Coastal Commission will struggle with each other to try to come to a consensus and carry out the legislative mandate to complete and certify the Malibu Local Coastal Program (MLCP) by Sept. 15.
They won’t be alone in the struggle, which has been raging for months and months. The coastal staff, the city and citizens of Malibu, the Santa Monica Mountains people, Los Angeles County supervisors and departments, farmers, equestrians, sportsmen, surfers, fishermen and ecologists have all battled to shape a final Local Coastal Program for Malibu and its environs. Whatever decisions the Coastal Commission makes, it’s going to take seven votes to pass a plan. And since the commission currently appears to be divided 6-6 on many issues, the next few days will disclose who blinks first and what compromises will be made to swing the crucial seventh vote on any particular issue.
The issues that are still on the table are pretty much the same issues that have been there from the beginning, and despite many compromises already made, the fundamental issues are still undecided.
ESHAs
Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) still top everyone’s list. As of now, the coastal staff, through a variety of stratagems, designations and land policies, have proposed turning most of Malibu into an ESHA, even parts of Malibu that are already built out.
The Coastal Commission argument is that there are many plants and animals that are becoming endangered by the rampant growth in and around the mountains and streams, and if action is not taken immediately, there will be no mountains left to protect. That assertion is challenged by the city, the county and many others who maintain the Coastal Commission is guilty of gross overkill in solving real but solvable problems. Opponents argue that in one single move, the Coastal Commission will have the discretion to grant or deny, limit or restrict almost any activity that any homeowner would do on their land, which might include painting a house, adding a room, repairing a driveway, keeping a horse, a goat or even a dog, cat or bird. The opposition to the LUP fears every choice a homeowner make will have to come from approved lists of plants, colors, designs, lighting and such. The city and county have advocated a more flexible approach, and so far the Coastal Commission has resisted. This week will tell.
Malibu Bluffs Park
Despite many assurances, the state does not want to evict the ball fields from Malibu’s Bluffs Park without an alternative. Apparently all the proposal-including the Crummer Trust 1 and 2 deals, or ‘White Holing’ the Bluffs Park- have run afoul of one problem or another. As it stands now, the proposed MLCP says the ball fields must go.
Visibility from scenic roads, trails, parklands, beaches and state waters
The Coastal Commission has proposed restrictive development standards, if whatever is being built is visible from a scenic road, a trail, parkland, a beach or a state waterway (which is the ocean). The city says it seems like over-reaching and has expressed fears it will be an administrative nightmare.
Requirements for temporary use permits
The proposed plan would require that home and landowners go to the city to get a temporary use permit if their activity would have a negative aspect on public access, recreation or coastal resources. Does throwing a party for 20 at a beach house with valet parking on a Sunday holiday constitute a negative impact on coastal resources, one of which is parking? How about a hillside party? No one is sure and the city is not quite sure how it would enforce such permits.
Agriculture and confined animal uses
The proposed plan limits horses, cats and dogs, particularly in ESHAs and ESHA buffers. Coastal’s rationale is these types of animals force out native animals, plants and birds, and destroy native vegetation. The city argues animals are part of what makes this a rural lifestyle, which is why people, both residents and visitors, come here in the first place.
Downzoning of approximately 150 lots
The city feels zoning is the province of the locality and the city, and is fearful the Coastal Commission hasn’t followed the constitutional requirements of notice, and might be casting the city into a very expensive legal thicket.
Appeals
The entire purpose of the MLCP is to transfer the permitting process to the locality, namely the city, and to get the Coastal Commission out of the loop. The city fears the Coastal Commission has enlarged and retained too much jurisdiction. It believes the language of the proposed MLCP is too soft and nonspecific, and the result will be that many city decisions to implement the plan will be appealed to the commission and, in effect, the Malibu Days, which everyone wants to end, will just continue.