The commission says budget cuts have slowed down pace of project reviews, putting some local projects, like La Paz, on the backburner.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
The California Coastal Commission will address several Malibu projects next week, including an application for a development permit for a 500-foot long rock revetment along the west bank of Malibu Creek, the issue of a Malibu Local Coastal Plan amendment regarding the La Paz Project and a wastewater treatment facility, and a lawsuit filed against the commission by an environmental group over its approval of an after-the-fact permit for Malibu Valley Farms.
On April 9 in Oxnard, the Coastal Commission will vote on whether to grant coastal staff a one-year extension to review a Local Coastal Program amendment submitted by the City of Malibu to allow for the development of two parcels and implementation of a centralized wastewater treatment facility on the La Paz property in the Civic Center area.
Steve Hudson, Coastal Commission district manager of the South Central Coast District Office, said last Friday in a telephone interview that budget cuts have contributed to the slow pace of project reviews.
“We are understaffed,” Hudson said. “Due to budget cuts we just don’t have the staff to process these things as fast as we can.”
Once submitted, applications to the Coastal Commission are usually processed in 60 to 90 days, but Hudson said this time frame is presently “not feasible.”
Though staff might not need an entire year to review the City of Malibu’s application, they have asked for it because the Coastal Commission can only grant one time extension per project.
The City of Malibu on Dec. 31 submitted an amendment to its certified LCP to allow the creation of a Town Center Overlay zone for the development of two community commercial-zoned parcels of the La Paz property located south of the Malibu Library.
The applicant, Schmitz and Associates, is simultaneously proposing two alternative projects.
The first, the La Paz Development Agreement Project, proposes the construction of approximately 112,000 square feet of commercial space for office and retail uses, and a 20,000-square-foot City Hall or municipal building complex.
The second project proposes the construction of approximately 99,177 square feet of space for commercial office and retail uses only.
Included in the application is a Wastewater Management System Master Plan submitted by the applicant in April 2008. Though the city council has been pressured to expedite its implementation, the Coastal Commission must approve the project before such action can take place.
Coastal to consider Malibu Creek rock revetment permit
The Mariposa Land Company applied for a coastal development permit to permanently retain and revegetate a 50-foot-long rock revetment, located along Malibu Creek next to the Malibu Creek Shopping Plaza, that was built under an emergency permit in 1998. The commission will vote whether to deny or approve the permit at its April 9 meeting in Oxnard.
Three environmental groups-Heal the Bay, Santa Monica Baykeeper and Malibu Surfing Association-are opposed to keeping the rock revetment, also called a rock rip-rap, permanently intact.
The 500 linear feet of rock rip-rap along the west bank of lower Malibu Creek was constructed as a revetment to protect the Cross Creek Plaza from the flooding of the creek in 1998 under an emergency permit issued by the commission. Emergency permits authorize immediate construction during disasters.
Mariposa Land Company is requesting authorization to permanently retain the rock rip-rap and to vegetate the revetment site to create approximately 0.59 acres of riparian and upland habitat that had previously been destroyed by storm erosion, both of which necessitate a coastal development permit.
Commission staff recommends approval of the permit.
In letters to the Coastal Commission, the three environmental groups state that the revetment has detrimentally impacted the natural resources and water quality in the Malibu creek and lagoon for the past 10 years by doing a poor job of stabilizing the stream bank and causing or contributing to downstream erosion and sediment loading.
They say the revetment is in direct conflict with the California Coastal Act and City of Malibu Local Coastal Program and urge the Coastal Commission to recommend alternatives for the site, such as creating a floodwall on the existing Cross Creek Plaza parking structure to protect the entire property.
The environmental groups also state that Coastal Commission staff has incorrectly stated that the revetment site is not an environmentally sensitive habitat area and that the site “supports and is critical habitat” for two federally endangered fish species: steelhead trout and tidewater goby.
Coastal to review CLEAN lawsuit
In a closed session meeting April 8, the Coastal Commission will further discuss a lawsuit that was filed against it by environmental and legal action group CLEAN, or Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network.
The suit states the commission in July 2007 incorrectly issued an after-the-fact development permit for Malibu Valley Farms, a horse showing and boarding facility located on Mulholland Highway off Kanan Road, that has allowed the facility’s horse manure and urine to “continue polluting” a stream that feeds into Malibu Creek.
The Los Angeles Superior Court in January ruled the commission’s approval of the after-the-fact development permit was not based on “substantial evidence” that adequately supported the commission’s decision that a 100-foot setback from the stream, designated as ESHA, or environmentally sensitive habitat area, would not be required.
“We think they [Malibu Valley Farms] should take everything out and start it from scratch like everyone else who follows the law,” Marcia Hanscom, managing director of CLEAN, said in February.
Fred Gaines, attorney for Malibu Valley Farms, said in February that the court’s decision is not final and that it rejected almost every argument made by CLEAN.
“It ruled in CLEAN’s favor in the sense of a small technical issue in that the findings adopted by the commission to justify the permit approval were not adequate,” Gaines said, “and so it has ordered that the matter go back to the commission for them to adopt revised findings.”