The organization says Malibu has eliminated or reduced protections for water quality and natural resources that were present in the Coastal Commission draft of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
Heal the Bay had strong words at Monday’s City Council meeting over the direction the city is taking in drafting its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The council conducted a workshop to go over the city-created LCP draft, at which it heard from several people, including Heal the Bay representatives.
“The Coastal Commission approved a Local Coastal Program for Malibu with a focus on water quality and natural resources,” said Shelley Luce, staff scientist at Heal the Bay. “We supported the strong protections that the document contained. We are now disappointed with some of the changes in the city’s proposed LCP that reduce or eliminate some of those protections.”
Luce looked to the large reduction of the portions of Malibu designated as environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), which she said was done without any technical rationale. However, Councilmember Jeff Jennings called Luce’s statement disturbing. He and other councilmembers said the Coastal Commission had little scientific rationale when it designated Malibu’s ESHAs in its LCP.
The city has taken a different approach in its land designation, creating a tiered system. ESHAs are given the highest priority. After that, there are resource protection areas (RPAs), followed by all other land designations. City Manager Katie Lichtig said the city worked with consultants to determine which areas would get which designations. She said Heal the Bay had not properly been given that information, but she plans to get it to the organization. Mark Gold, Heal the Bay’s executive director, said after the meeting that the organization’s intention was not to say it supported the Coastal Commission’s LCP or that it was challenging the city’s approach, but rather that it just wanted to make sure land designation was done scientifically.
The city’s consultant will take the recommendations it received from the council to create an updated draft, which should be issued sometime in mid-December. A series of public hearings will take place in January and February on the draft, prior to the creation of the finalized version.
The city will present the Coastal Commission with the document sometime later in the year as amendments to the commission-created LCP, possibly ending the stand off, in which no coastal development permits have been issued in Malibu for more than a year. However, there is also the possibility the city’s LCP could go before the voters as a replacement for the commission-drafted LCP. Whether that can occur is before the state’s appellate court. City Attorney Christi Hogin said she attempted to get a decision as soon as January, setting up a possible April election if the case is found in the city’s favor. But she said the Coastal Commission has not shared her sentiments, and has asked for extensions.
Also at the meeting, Councilmember Andy Stern said he was disappointed Steve Uhring, president of Malibu Community Action Network (CAN), the leading opposition group to Measure M, did not sign a letter that went to the Malibu Bay Company, asking for it to come back to the table to negotiate a new agreement.
Last week, Uhring told The Malibu Times he would sign the letter, which was mostly written by CAN, if asked to do so. City Manager Katie Lichtig said she asked him late last week, and he refused. Uhring could not be reached for comment.
No rehab in my backyard
Also at the meeting, some residents from the Trancas Highlands Community Association spoke about the annoyance of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities in their neighborhood. Eric Myer said there are five homes in his neighborhood, all owned by Creative Care, Inc. He said they cause extra traffic because of the high number of staff and visitors at the homes. Creative Care could not be reached for comment.
Hogin said the city has looked to the state to solve the problem of rehabilitation centers taking over a neighborhood. With these programs, the goal is to integrate the homes into a neighborhood.
But Hogin pointed out that the purpose is defeated when there are too many facilities. She said a better option would be to limit the number of homes in each neighborhood.
Jennings suggested Malibu get support from other cities if it were to get the state to examine passing such laws.