City officials explain the details and meanings of how the LCP plan will impact them and how the city is attempting to tone down these effects. This was the first of four special City Council informational meetings on the issue.
Property rights could be severely threatened if the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP), as drafted by the California Coastal Commission, is implemented this summer. That was one of the concerns highlighted by City Council officials to a full house of residents at the Malibu West Swim Club on Monday night.
Armed with the city manager, the city attorney, the city’s lobbyist and the city’s special project manager, Mayor Joan House and Mayor Pro-Tem Jeff Jennings broke down the Local Coastal Plan concepts as devised by the Coastal Commission.
Seventy percent of Malibu would be considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) where land use would be limited to a minimum, they said.
Even if someone owns 39 acres, they could only improve on 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of their property, whichever is greater. These improvements would include the home, any accessory structures such as barns, tennis courts or pools, and landscaping.
“It’s not a condemnation, it’s just the next best thing to a condemnation,” said Jennings.
Jennings and House currently represent the council in LCP negotiations with the Coastal Commission.
Jennings explained the commission based these ESHAs on aerial photographs. He queried the method used by the commission to determine the ESHA zones because it designated all the green areas on the photos as ESHAs, even if developments were hidden under tree cover.
“But it’s [LCP] a moving target,” he said. “Because the policies change.”
The Land Use Plan (Editor’s note: The full title of the Coastal Commission’s draft is City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; Land Use Plan, which the Times refers to most often as the LCP) is a collection of policies that establish ESHAs, zoning and building standards in Malibu. These policies are implemented and enforced by the city. Normally the city would draft its own policies, which are then certified by the Coastal Commission. But Malibu took too long to create its own and the commission grasped the LCP matter into its own hands when legislators passed a bill, AB 988, enabling it to do so.
Although many other coastal cities do not have an LCP, Malibu appeared to be singled out when the issue came to light in the media, with stories about well-known Malibu residents complaining to Sacramento officials about the city’s land-use practices.
Mike Roos, a political consultant hired by the city to deal with the LCP, said Malibu might be the guinea pig for the Coastal Commission. If the commission writes an LCP for Malibu successfully, it may create LCPs for other cities throughout the California coast as well, he noted.
Aside from ESHAs, the Bluffs Park ball fields are also a source of concern in regards to the Coastal Commission’s draft plan,
“One of the things that drives me crazy is the issue at Bluffs Park,” said Jennings.
The Coastal Commission has been pushing to remove the ball fields, which are on State Parks land, because they are for local use, said Jennings.
The draft LCP, as written to date, would prohibit the Crummer Trust deal, which would let the city keep one field at the Bluffs Park and two fields would be moved onto an adjacent property currently owned by Crummer Trust.
The issue of down zoning came up when residents asked about possible limitations on beachfront lots. They were concerned the plan may impact lower- and median-income families who would no longer be able to afford housing on the beach. Based on the LCP, beachfront properties in eastern Malibu would be down zoned to single-family standards, which would reduce the number of multifamily units in that area.
“It’s economic cleansing,” said Jennings.
But despite all the concerns voiced, councilmembers, city staff and representatives kept the tone down.
They emphasized the city is working with the Coastal Commission to minimize the impact of the LCP on Malibu residents.
“The city staff continues to meet with Coastal Commission staff to try to come together and get the LCP to harmonize with the city’s general plan,” said Jennings.
Katie Lichtig, city manager, listed the progress the city has made as it negotiates with the commission. She said some ambiguities were eliminated and prohibitions referring to accessory structures were deleted from the plan.
“We will pursue all options, nothing is off the table,” joined House. “When you have a moving target, you don’t just have one goal.”
However, “if the Coastal Commission doesn’t budge, we won’t give up,” said Christi Hogin, city attorney.
Now the council is reaching out for the community’s help and with the aid of Roos, they urged residents to respond politically.
“Talk to your elected representatives,” said Roos. “Talk to California Gov. Gray Davis, call Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.”
“It’s about local control,” said Councilmember Ken Kearsley. “We need to have voices, or the value of houses in ESHAs will be diminished greatly.”
But not all residents agreed with the council’s approach as they deal with the LCP. Malibu resident Marshall Thompson first commended city officials for their work. However, he pointed out that environmental responsibility should be exercised.
“Everywhere I look, there is construction,” he said. Thompson advocated that people should think independently and not be influenced by an out-of-town political consultant.
Marcia Hanscom, Wetlands Action Network chair and Sierra Club member, who also participates in City Council candidate Robert Roy van de Hoek’s campaign, said the LCP discussion in Malibu is based on fear.
The Council will host another special meeting at 7 p.m. on Thursday at Duke’s Restaurant.