One of the key sections of the Coastal Commission staff’s draft LCP Land Use Plan and its draft Implementation Plan relates to public access, both laterally along Malibu’s coastline and vertically from the public roads of Malibu to the shoreline. In order to determine if this concern is real or illusory, I have undertaken, on three occasions over the past few weeks, to walk the City of Malibu’s entire coastline below the mean high tide line, from Leo Carrillo Beach to near Topanga Canyon Boulevard, a distance of almost 22 miles.
Here are my conclusions from this three-day trek across Malibu.
At no point was my progress prevented by natural or human forces; no fences blocked my way; no signs prevented me from walking the beaches of Malibu seaward of mean high tide line.
Malibu has many beautiful beaches already extremely publicly accessible, supported by the necessary lifeguard, toilet, trash collection and parking facilities. This includes Leo Carrillo, Nicholas Canyon, La Piedra, El Matador, Broad, Zuma, Westward, Paradise Cove, Escondido, Corral, Dan Blocker, Puerco, Amarillo (Malibu Road), Surfrider and Topanga.
The “vertical access” so touted by the Coastal Commission staff is illusory. In many places where such vertical access is sought, the beaches are very small or even nonexistent at high tide, and would seem to be of interest only to residents, and at low tide at that. For a visitor to come to Malibu and try to find a parking place at Big Rock Beach Accessway, for instance, and descend the many concrete steps to the small, boulder-strewn beach below would seem to be ridiculous compared to visiting the wide expanse of Zuma Beach or the natural beauty of El Matador Beach.
The key point here is that if the Coastal Commission staff feels there is a burning need for more beach access in Malibu, then the state should pay for the purchase of beach properties to provide such beach access, complete with the necessary public amenities and safety that California’s citizens have come to expect at its beaches.
I presented these findings at the Coastal Commission hearing in Huntington Beach this past Wednesday. Chairman Sara Wan held all public speakers (including me) to two minutes. A representative of the L.A. County Fire Department was attempting to testify as to the fire danger which would result from declaring the chaparral and coastal sage scrub in Malibu an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. He was concerned that in the high fire season which is approaching (or already here), it will be necessary to clear buffer zones in the ESHA to prevent structures from being burned and to allow less flammable, non-native species to be planted in these zones. Chairman Wan cut him off.
The only public speakers not kept to this two-minute limit were representatives of a group known as the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy. Headed by Steve Uhring, this group of 13 speakers was given a full hour to present their arguments. The same amount of time as was given to Mayor Jeff Jennings and the other city representatives who spoke in opposition to the Coastal Commission staff’s draft LCP.
I found this arbitrary decision by Chairman Wan to grant equal time to persons who opposed what Malibu’s elected representatives were trying to present, very offensive. Among this gang of 13 were many of the “usual suspects” who regularly and vocally oppose any growth whatsoever in Malibu.
Some of the Coastal Commission’s cronies at the hearing were distributing signs saying, “Save Malibu-Support the Coastal Commission.” I think a more appropriate sign would be “Save Malibu from the Coastal Commission” and from those who claim to be “The True Voice of Malibu.”
Ted Vaill