California Coastal Commission Undermines Stream Protection

Chair, Santa Monica Mountains Task Force

Photo by Tom Gamache Solstice Canyon, one of the many scenic wild places that need to be protected in the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Plan.

The Angeles Chapter has asked the Sierra Club to support litigation seeking to overturn a California Coastal Commission decision that reverses long-standing Commission policies designed to protect water quality in coastal streams in the Santa Monica Mountains and on heavily-used beaches along Santa Monica Bay.

For the past 20 years, the Coastal Commission has consistently followed a policy of classifying all riparian woodlands in the Santa Monica Mountains as 'Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas' ('ESHAs'), and has required all new development to be set back a minimum of 100' from the outer edge of these riparian woodland 'ESHAs'.

There are several good reasons for this setback requirement: if development - including animal pens - is set back at least 100' from a stream, there is much less chance that pollutants - including fertilizers, pesticides, and animal manure - will find their way into the stream and be carried downstream to heavily used public beaches along Santa Monica Bay.

Riparian woodlands are the most biologically productive habitats in California, yet over 90% of all riparian woodlands in Los Angeles County have already been destroyed by channelization, rip-rapping, and filling to protect encroaching development.

Since riparian woodlands usually correspond to the flood plain, requiring a 100' setback keeps development out of harm's way during major storm events without encroaching on the stream.

Several years ago, a developer built an equestrian facility without permits 'in and adjacent to' Stokes Creek, a major tributary of Malibu Creek. The project came before the Coastal Commission at their July 9th meeting in San Luis Obispo.

In what was generally conceded to be an excellent staff analysis, Coastal Commission staff pointed out that the Coastal Act requires the Commission to protect water quality in coastal streams and maintain a buffer of riparian vegetation along those streams.

Staff recommended the project be relocated 100' away from the stream and riparian habitat, pointing out that the 100' setback was actually the minimum necessary to keep pathogens from being carried into the creek. Public testimony generally supported this position.

Staff and Sierra Club representative Mark Massara emphasized the large number of public parks and camps along Stokes Creek and Malibu Creek where people would be exposed to pathogens in the runoff from this project during the creek's winding course through Malibu Creek State Park, Malibu Canyon, Malibu Lagoon, and Surfrider Beach.

As soon as Stokes Creek leaves the property, it enters the former Soka property, now known as King Gillette Ranch Park, which was purchased by a consortium of state and federal park agencies two years ago so it could become the main visitor center for the tens of thousands of acres of state and federal parks in the Santa Monica Mountains. Stokes Creek runs through the most heavily used part of this park.

Further on, the creek enters Malibu Creek State Park, where large numbers of children wade and swim in it during the summer months.

However, Commission discussion did not focus on the critical issues of water quality, public health, and sensitive environmental resources. Instead, there was a meandering discussion of the value of horses to 'inner city kids' without anyone asking whether any real evidence had been presented that 'inner city kids' had ever been on the property.

The dominant impression of those at the hearing was that most commissioners had not bothered to read the staff report or the written testimony from the public. However, several commissioners acknowledged that they had met with and heard presentations from the developer's representatives.

Staff continued to emphasize that the 100' setback was the minimum (most academic studies on stream setbacks support that position) and that parts of this project were only 10' to 30' from the creek. Feeling that most commissioners weren't listening, one commissioner supporting the setback finally became so exasperated that she said she didn't see how the Commission could adopt findings to justify overriding its own staff recommendation and approving the project.

But that's just what the Commission did. By a 7-5 vote, they approved Malibu Valley Farms with much less than the usual 100' riparian setback immediately upstream from 8,000 acres of state and federal parklands. All four of Governor Schwarzenegger's appointees voted for approval, along with three of Assembly Speaker Nunez's appointees. Only the four Senate appointees stood fast for the 100' setback, safe water quality, and environmental protection.

The larger message here is that the Coastal Commission - and those who appoint them - who are supposed to be protecting the beauty of our coast and the health of our coastal waters, seem to have to have fallen under the sway of those who would over-develop and pollute our streams, wetlands, and ocean.

The question now is, what are we going to do about it?