Unincorporated Property Owners Sound Off on Proposed County LCP

• Trails and Zoning Changes on Larger Parcels Are Key Issues

BY BILL KOENEKER

How proposed trails would be aligned on private property or obtained, what the development standards are for building on or near ridgelines, how new zoning in significant watersheds would impact property owners and how the zoning designation of rural village would affect property owners were just some of the questions tackled at a special meeting to discuss Los Angeles County’s draft Local Coastal Program for the unincorporated areas of Malibu and the rest of the Santa Monica Mountains.

The county adopted the Malibu Land Use Plan for the Santa Monica Mountains which was certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1986. An implementation program was never adopted and the coastal agency continues to take responsibility for issuing coastal permits. To achieve a complete LCP, county planners prepared a draft revision of the plan and put together an implementation program.

“The purpose of this meeting is for the regional planning staff to hear from you and put into writing your comments on the website for others to view,” said Gina Natoli, the acting section head of the county’s planning department.

On October 25, the county’s planning commission will hold a public hearing to take testimony. A second public hearing will be held at a later date. The matter will also be heard by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently the Coastal Commission for certification.

Malibu resident Gary Peterson said he was concerned that a proposed trail that would split his property would be obtained from him by “blackmail,” if he wanted to get a permit to remodel his home, which he said was the original residence on the Kincaid Ranch.

After the meeting, Peterson said he was puzzled why the trail designation was on the county’s maps, because several years ago, the National Park Service had deleted the path in its development concept plan for Trancas and Zuma canyons.

Another couple, who did not say where their parcel was located, said they were equally mystified about how a trail designation came to be on official maps and documents. “Who decided to create this trail? Who is that person?” asked the pair during a public question and answer session.

Peterson also wanted to know what the impacts might be to properties located in canyons designated as significant watersheds and what were the implications of the subsequent zoning of those lands for either 20 acres or 40 acres per dwelling unit.

Natoli said, with the exception of several canyons, the zoning would mean that anything less than 20 or 40 acres would not be able to be subdivided. “It is to ensure the mountains are not as populated as other areas of the county,” she added.

Earlier in the meeting, planners talked about the proposed set of changes and said with only the county issuing permits instead of the Coastal Commission there will be one set of rules offering a certain amount of simplicity.

In addition, the county will have jurisdiction allowing the permitting process, permit decision makers and planning staff to be local and more accessible to applicants.

There will be several kinds of permits that can be obtained, such as an administrative coastal development permit for certain uses that do not require changes in land use and have few impacts. A minor CDP is required for uses that have the potential for minor changes in land use and minor impacts to the surroundings. An example cited is a use requiring a minor CDP for the boarding of horses in the R-C zone which is a new zone that replaces the A-1, A-2 and R-A zones in the plan area.

A major CDP would be necessary for a use that requires conditions to mitigate major changes in land use and major impacts to the surroundings. An example illustrated would be requiring a major CDP for wineries and schools in the R-C zone.

Don Wallace took issue with some of those proposals pertaining to horses, saying there was no mention in the document of the historical significance of horses and horse ranches in the Santa Monicas. Another equestrian said it seemed unlikely that folks would pay the nearly $7,000 permit fee simply to board a couple of horses.

A handout, given at the meeting, indicated that the LCP will affect a resident’s ability to keep horses and other animals. Animal containment facilities cannot be located within natural drainage courses and must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Wallace said some of those restrictions were not clearly defined, such as what actually constituted a drainage course.

Additionally, the LCP will also impact the ability of homeowners to grow crops on their property. Agricultural activities must be at least 100 feet from an ESHA and at least 50 feet from any riparian habitat that is not a designated ESHA. Runoff must be diverted, with a berm or other measures and a host of rules apply.

Some property owners said the building standards for ridgelines were too restrictive and would deprive builders of being able to maximize views. They wanted to know what criteria were used to designate certain hilltops as significant ridgelines. “How will you compensate us if we won’t be allowed to see the ocean?” asked a property owner.

Several Topanga residents complained about their property being located in a rural village designation and asked what than means.

Natoli said it is a designation that applies to small lot subdivisions created in the 1920s and 30s. It is a new land use category that would define how there are some areas, like Topanga, in the mountains where development concentrations are more often urban in density, but still located in a rural environment. “The designation would allow greater flexibility,” said Natoli.