The papers from speakers piled up in front of each city council member like so many wood chips being gathered for a bonfire. Then, one after another, the speakers rose to spark a conflagration over the city’s draft of a new Local Coastal Plan (LCP) at last week’s council meeting.
Chief among them was attorney Frank Angel, representing the Malibu Township Committee. Saying he was “appalled at the mockery this council and its interim city manager [Christi Hogin] are making of the democratic public review process,” Angel warned of court action against the council, including a writ citing possible violations against the California Coastal Act.
Moments later Councilmember Sharon Barovsky looked Angel in the eye and said, “You go ahead and file your writ, and you know what? We’ll file our own writ and this whole thing will end up in court. Is that what your clients really want?”
Angel urged that Malibu defer to the California Coastal Commission in regards to an LCP. He called the city’s new LCP an “ill-advised attempt” to stop the commission from writing its own coastal plan. He said he had called state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton’s office to say that the Coastal Commission should write the LCP “because this council does not represent the city.”
And the war was on.
What the critics of the plan wanted was not all that apparent, although they were clearly miffed that public debate on the LCP came barely 72 hours after it was made available to the public at the start of the Memorial Day weekend, at a cost of $26.57 per copy.
Opponents had more to say in the days following the council meeting.
Jo Ruggles, former city planning commissioner and a veteran of the coastal planning wars for many years, is one of the most outspoken critics of the new LCP. She chaired the city’s LCP Advisory Committee that spent four years drafting Malibu’s first city-generated coastal plan, which was brushed aside by the California Coastal Commission. Known as the 2000 Administrative Draft, it was presented to the Coastal Commission in March of last year. But the commission has never formally responded to that draft.
“We were told that it was dead-on-arrival, that it didn’t live up to the spirit of the Coastal Act,” said Barovsky.
Ruggles contended that the new LCP isn’t likely to fare any better. “In my opinion,” she said, “based on directions that the LCP committee was given by Coastal … I would imagine this one will also be dead-on-arrival.”
However, Councilmember Ken Kearsley said the new LCP “took out all the awkwardness and redundancies–things that were superfluous” from the first draft, which, he said, “was unreadable and made us look like a bunch of amateurs.”
Councilmember Tom Hasse said the new draft was “put into a format more acceptable to the Coastal Commission.”
A key potential sticking point in both plans is how to control the growth of visitor-serving facilities along the coast. Coastal Act Policy states, “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.”
Ruggles acknowledged that the Coastal Commission staff had made it clear that so-called “active” recreational facilities would be a problem, “and that those would be issues that would be debated and discussed and compromised…”
Both sides agreed that beach access and sewage disposal policies would need to be debated with the Coastal Commission. But with its first LCP at a stalemate and its second proposal threatened by litigation, prospects for Malibu’s control of its own destiny appear shaky.
Melanie Goudsward, who served briefly on the LCP Advisory Committee, said, “I think the committee had a huge stigma to overcome, that we were all viewed as elitists who want to shut the door and not let anyone in.”
The specter is that the Coastal Commission will simply write its own plan and ignore input from the city, as it was empowered to do by state legislation last year (AB 988).
“That means more hotels, hot dog stands and multifamily housing without any input from us,” said Kearsley.
The critics’ objections focused on their contention that the new LCP took out many substantial portions of the first LCP draft and that the City Council simply “trashed” it without fighting for it. But City Attorney Christi Hogin, who as interim city manager drafted the new LCP, said, “There aren’t a lot of substantive differences, really.”
Both LCPs, Hogin said, are based on the county’s 1986 Land Use Plan for the coast. What’s different? “I think, to the extent that there were policies that may have been in conflict with the Coastal Act, we’ve tried to remove that, to simplify it a little.”
And the argument goes on. But the underlying issue appears to be the evil that dare not speak its name: Politics.
Since the Coastal Commission has never officially responded to the first draft, there is nothing on record as to what its objections were. There is lots of speculation, though.
Art London of the Malibu Township Council expressed one popular theory at the council meeting:
“Although no one seems to be willing or able to explain just how, after the April 2000 election, word seems to have got out that Malibu’s reconstituted City Council determined to disown and dump the previous council’s LCP.” He suggested that the newly elected council sabotaged the plan. “It is simply not believable that Coastal or any governmental agency would, without an express request from the sender, act to reject or otherwise withhold comment on a document submitted for agency comment.”
The rhetoric cooled down some at an ad hoc hearing conducted by Barovsky and Hasse on Monday, six days after the council blowout. Sentiment among the 20 or so who attended was about evenly divided for and against the new LCP. With the exception of a few strident voices, compromise appeared to be in the air.
Jay Liebig of the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy (MCLC) said, “I’m not rolling over for anybody.” He urged the council to “take a chance on litigation.” But fellow MCLC member Sarah Dixon said of the meeting, “I think this is a very good exercise, and I’m glad we’re doing it.”
Meanwhile, the City Council will try to move forward with two more public hearings on June 11 and June 13.
“If everything proceeds in an orderly way, it should be this month that the document is transmitted up there [to the Coastal Commission],” said Hogin, “unless something comes up that requires more hearings.”
As to the plan being written by the Coastal Commission, Coastal Commission SaraWan said only, “I know nothing about that at this point.”