By Celia Haight and Stacy Hannay
Staff Writers
For 30 years, the California Coastal Commission has been planning and protecting the coastal zones for the state of California.
In 1972 voters established the California Coastal Commission, and it became a permanent fixture in the state government in 1976. The goal over these 30 years has been to maintain the federally approved coastal management program.
The focus of the Coastal Commission is to protect beach access, recreational use and approve proposed land development.
The Local Coastal Plan
The city of Malibu has long had a tumultuous relationship with the California Coastal Commission. The 26-mile long city of Malibu is entirely within the designated coastal zone area.
Therefore, the city is required to create a Local Coastal Plan, similar to most coastal zone cities such as San Diego, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
This plan outlines policies for land development, zoning and recreational use of the coastal lands.
“The LCP is required by the Coastal Act,” said Sara Wan, chairperson of the California Coastal Commission. “The plan must comply with the Coastal Act and all jurisdictions must follow it.”
A main priority of the California Coastal Commission is to maintain and review Local Coastal Plans, ensuring the environment and citizens are protected.
“The Commission does very important duties for the state’s coast,” said Wan, a Malibu resident. “The rules and polices in land use planning have been used in the city of Malibu for years.”
However, a refurbished LCP for Malibu has been a five-year project. A plan is intended to show what the general policies are regarding development in the community, where development is appropriate and what kind of development is allowed. The city proposed two plans to the California Coastal Commission, one in March 2000 and the other in July 2001.
Both were deemed insufficient by the Commission.
“In the end we are responsible for the Local Coastal Plan,” said, Jack Ainsworth, a California Coastal Commission planner. “Therefore, tension has been created between Malibu and the Commission.”
The Controversy
The LCP is composed of two parts. The first part is the Land Use Plan (LUP), which determines how the land will be used in a given area. The second part consists of the laws and ordinances that are developed to implement the LUP.
Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin added that there are two sections to worry about with the Land Use Plan.
“The first worry is that the Land Use Plan will be inconsistent with Malibu’s Plan, and the second is trying to please everyone involved,” Hogin said.
In what some call a biased and unfair move, the California State Assembly passed AB 988 in August 2000, which was signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis. It amended the Coastal Act and required the California Coastal Commission to write, submit and approve a Malibu LCP by Sept. 15.
Malibu is the only city that this bill affects.
City officials believe it is more than a routine program change, but a rather drastic move.
“Malibu is different due to the bill,” said Barry Hogan, special projects manager for the city of Malibu. “The city cannot write their own bill.”
Despite the city of Malibu’s disagreement with the goal of the assembly bill, the California Coastal Commission drafted a Land Use Plan for Malibu and delivered it on Jan. 15. This plan conforms to state coastal protection laws and provisions of the California and United States Constitutions that protect property rights.
In many respects, the new LCP is similar to previous plans that produce a blueprint for the city. However, in some areas the Coastal Commission’s plan is drastically different than the city of Malibu’s vision of land use and development. Malibu city officials are frustrated because they cannot write their own plan.
“The commission has a good relationship with the city staff in working towards a new LCP,” Ainsworth said. “But some rhetoric is causing problems between our two organizations. There are fundamental policy differences between the city and Commission.”
Currently, the Land Use Plan is under review by the city of Malibu officials.
There are still 144 issues that they are disputing. Major concerns are due to unenforceable implementations and substantial costs to implement the plan.
The city will enforce the LCP once the California Coastal Commission certifies it. However, the city still has reservations concerning the basic aspects of the plan.
Wan, however, says the differences are minimal.
“The public is being mislead and misinformed,” Wan said. “The plan only effects new developments and designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), not current property or homes.”
Malibu city officials agree that protecting the area’s environment is essential. But designated ESHAs handcuff their decision — making them responsible as elected officials, they say.
Sensitive Habitat
A key concern in the plan is designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas of Malibu land, commonly known as “ESHAs”. These areas contain coastal sage scrub and chaparral that needs to be protected, according to the Coastal Commission.
The plant and animal life in these areas that are valuable and rare could be destroyed by human development. According to Wan, the Santa Monica Mountain region is more biologically diverse than the redwood forests and needs protection against uncontrolled development and invasive plants.
“The Malibu area is extremely diverse and without protection would sustain serious harm,” Wan said. “The sage scrub and chaparral work together in this environment. The Malibu area is one of the few remaining location where these plants are found. We need to protect these species of plants and the entire diverse population of species in the Malibu coastal region.”
There is currently a dispute about the amount of land that is designated as ESHAs
Limited Construction, Landscaping and Beach Access
With the Land Use Plan, citizens of Malibu would be limited to construction of up to 10,000-square feet in an ESHA. However, after the plan is certified, the city will have control in changing this categorization.
But Hogan points out that this new policy limits land development.
“At the western end of town there are now 20-acre lots,” Hogan said. “With the new plan they would be zoned to 40-acre lots. But when you want to develop a 100-acre space with the new plan, a developer could only build two lots due to the 40-acre restriction, instead of the current five lots with a 20-acre restriction.”
In addition to building size limits in the new Land Use Plan, confusion over landscaping is an issue. The city of Malibu states on its Web site that a resident in an ESHA could not plant a rose bush between Nov. 1 and March 1.
However, Wan disagrees with that assumption.
“You can plant a rose bush,” Wan said. “This issue only affects citizens in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area that are landscaping a new property or development. A person can plant non-invasive, non-native plants like a rose bush, lawn and fruit trees. The Commission cannot limit non-invasive plants and by law is only allowed to limit invasive plants. The goal of the plan is to stop invasive plants like pampas grass from pushing out native species.”
Another issue being discussed in the plan is beach access. Property owners of beachfront homes are required to have easements to the beach. In California, the public owns the beach. In the Coastal Act owners are required to have easements, which are areas in private property that allow public access to the beach.
“It is the law, plain and simple,” Wan said. “But landowners don’t want beach access for the public that is were the problem arises.”
Malibu resident Jamie Purcell, however, believes that the sections of the beach surrounding private property should remain private.
“Residents of Malibu pay good money to have the beach as their backyard,” Purcell said. “There are plenty of public beaches to keep the rest of the public happy.”
According to Ainsworth, there are a number of vertical access easements that still need to be accepted.
Access For All, a nonprofit beach organization, has been working with the California Coastal Commission and the city of Malibu to find a solution to the easement problem. Factors that go along with easements are public parking, facilities and maintenance of the access ways to the beach. Malibu will have to fund the easement project that is required in the LCP.
Malibu residents are also complaining about the limited beach accesses in their own neighborhoods.
“Much of our beaches are being barricaded illegally by selfish people who think Malibu is a country club,” resident Hans Laetz said. “While individual homeowners may claim rights to the sand they do not claim rights to the ocean.”
City officials also object to development guidelines in the Coastal Commission plan that call for tourist services, such as hotels and restaurants.
Due to such issues like ESHAs, landscaping and beach access, the city staff and city council are working with the Commission to make changes and finish the Implementation Plan. There is still a long way to go.
“We will get it done,” Ainsworth said. “Things have gone as planned and the law mandates a Local Coastal Plan by Sept. 15.”
After the plan is adopted, it will be sent to the California Coastal Commission for certification, as prescribed by the AB 988 bill. After certification, the city of Malibu will then have control over zoning, permits and development. Malibu will use the plan to decided developments on a case-by-case basis using the designated LCP.
The next LCP public meeting is scheduled for April 6 at 10 a.m. at Malibu City Hall. Residents of the city are asked to attend to find out how the plan will affect them. Another meeting is scheduled for July.
“The community should try and understand that a Local Coastal Plan will give them control over their own future,” Wan said. “Right now they don’t have any control.”
March 28, 2002