Blueprint for MALIBU

How to ensure that the public is not excluded from the coastline is a continuing point of contention for beachgoers, private landowners, the state Coastal Commission and the County Board of Supervisors.

To surfer Thomas Pratte, access to public beaches is more than an abstract planning issue. It is something he has learned about firsthand.

“I grew up exploring the coast, looking at every beach from Santa Barbara to San Diego” for the best surfing spots, he said. And in the process of investigating beaches that lie off the beaten path, he said ruefully, “I got run out of a lot places by people who said I didn’t belong there.”

Because of these encounters with angry beachfront property owners, and an understandable confusion over which beaches are public and which are private, Pratte decided to help collect signatures for Proposition 20, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972.

The passage of that initiative, and the subsequent enactment of the Coastal Act of 1976, set in motion an historic effort to ensure that the public is not excluded from California’s spectacular 1,100-mile coastline.

Local Plans Required

The landmark coastal legislation calls for the establishment of local coastal plans to provide a blueprint for development and to provide for public access.

It took almost 10 years to develop a land-use plan for the 65,000-acre Malibu Coastal Zone because so many competing public and private interests have a stake in this valuable 27-mile coastline.

The principal sparring partners were the California Coastal Commission, which pressed hard for environmental protections and public access, and Los Angeles County, which was more sympathetic to property rights and development issues.

The disparity between the two was evident in 1985 when the commission rejected the county’s land-use proposal for Malibu because it would have allowed excessive development and insufficient shoreline access. The county also would have allowed twice as much residential development as eventually was permitted in a revised plan adopted by the commission in December.

The 130-page blueprint for the development of Malibu represents the culmination of “a long, hard struggle,” according to county Planning Director Norman Murdoch.

Controversial Nuances

“I have worked on plans in every part of the United States and have never found one more challenging than Malibu. . . . Every single issue and nuance was controversial,” he said.

Many of those who testified at numerous public hearings over the years were adamant that strong beach-access requirements were needed to prevent what David Brown of the Sierra Club calls “the privatization of the coast.”

Only about 10 miles of the the Malibu coast is public, planners said.

Without coastal legislation, access points would have become “completely closed off from public use” because of economic pressure for private development, said Pratte, executive vice president of the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit group representing the beach-going public.

Peter Dixon, a 21-year resident of Malibu, agreed. “If there were no plan and no Coastal Commission,” he said, “we would see no public access to the beach in Malibu except for those portions purchased for public use a long time ago.”

Cheek-by-jowl development along Pacific Coast Highway has become known as “the Chinese Wall of Malibu,” according to Madelyn Glickfeld, a planner and Coastal Commission alternate member who lives in Malibu and has worked to keep massive development from overwhelming this fabled seaside community.

No Immediate Results

Those who expected that the adoption of the Malibu plan would result in the immediate opening of new public beaches and walkways will be disappointed, officials acknowledged. Except for an access improvement the county started just last week at Topanga Creek and Pacific Coast Highway, the glorious Malibu coastline has no more public beaches or accessways than when the plan was approved nearly eight months ago.

The plan is intended to produce gradual rather than immediate improvements in public access by regulating new development, according to Steve Scholl, who supervised the Malibu plan for the Coastal Commission.

The plan will have an incremental effect by setting conditions under which developers will be required to provide public access to obtain approval for their projects, he said.

To help provide public access to the beach, the Malibu plan calls for the installation of about 50 walkways and stairways leading to the shoreline from the nearest road or highway.

There now are 11 such accessways in Malibu, most of them established by the county in 1971 to comply with a provision in the Subdivision Map Act requiring public access to all state tidelands.

Zonker Harris Walkway

The celebrated Zonker Harris walkway, whimsically named for the sun-worshipping character in Gary Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” comic strip, was opened near the Malibu Pier in 1980 as a result of commission efforts to make the Malibu coast more accessible to the public.

The addresses of Malibu’s public accessways and beaches are available in the informative “California Coastal Access Guide” compiled by the Coastal Commission and available in bookstores for $10.95.

A companion volume, the “California Coastal Resource Guide,” to be priced at $14.95, is being readied for publication this fall and will provide details on the history and natural and man-made resources of coastal sites, according to Pat Stebbins, the commission’s assistant deputy director for access.

But even with the addresses, the 11 accessways to secluded Malibu beaches can be devilishly hard to find.

When Jim Norton and Mary Larkin decided to take a stroll on scenic Trancas Beach one Friday afternoon during their recent visit here from London, they found the shoreline deserted. But, they said, they felt lucky to find it at all.

Friends with whom they were staying in Malibu had clued them in on the location of the unobtrusive walkway that leads to the public shoreline from Broad Beach Road, they said.

Warning Signs

Signs warn visitors to stay off the private beach on either side of the walkway. Only the walkway itself and the land seaward of the average high tide line (usually the wet sand) is open to the public here.

Each of the Malibu accessways is marked only by a bright yellow trash can and an inconspicuous sign or two, so beachgoers may have to drive by several times to find one.

On Broad Beach Road and Malibu Road, the access gates often blend in with the landscaping and architecture of neighboring beachfront houses, making them difficult to detect.

And beachgoers who drive on Pacific Coast Highway at a leisurely 45 miles an hour looking for accessways can expect scowls, at the very least, from motorists in the high-speed traffic that usually prevails.

Malibu’s elusive accessways are a crucial means of providing public access because they help bring visitors to lesser-known beaches, planners said.

Cherished by beachgoers, the accessways are reviled by many residents who view them as an invasion of their backyard privacy and a violation of property rights.

Unpopular Beaches

Also unpopular among residents are three small state beaches collectively known as the Robert H. Meyer Memorial Beaches and individually named El Pescador, La Piedra and El Matador.

Located within a mile of each other in western Malibu, these beaches adjoin private property. Frequently, signs directing the public to them are painted over or destroyed, according to Ken Leigh, chief ranger for state parks department’s Santa Monica Mountains District. “Those signs just don’t have any life expectancy at all,” he said.

At accessways, too, signs are removed and gates locked during the middle of the day as a gesture of local resistance, officials said.

The accessways are a point of contention between the Coastal Commission and the county, which, once ordinances are drafted and approved, will be given authority to implement the plan.

The county contends that individual walkways are not the best way to provide maximum public access with limited public funds, said Larry Charness, planning chief for the county Department of Beaches and Harbors.

The accessways represent “a severe case of tokenism,” he said.

Wasteful Diversion

Rather than using public funds to benefit the small number of people who use the accessways, he said, the county would prefer to improve access at large public beaches that are used by many people.

It costs $3,000 to $10,000 a year to maintain each accessway, he estimated. “That doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s wasteful,” he said.

County maintenance workers have to open the accessways each morning, and lifeguards close them at night, he said. Using county workers at the accessways diverts them from other needed services, he said.

Another problem, he said, is that access sites are too small for parking facilities or concessions that would generate revenues to offset county beach-operations costs. The county has an annual deficit of about $8 million for beach operations, he said.

For these reasons, he said, the county’s policy for many years has been “not to open new accessways.”

“The county agreed to the land-use plan and the Board of Supervisors agreed to it, (but) it’s a matter of implementation,” he added. “The county may agree that these programs are acceptable, but then we have to carry them out using available county resources.

Let Someone Else Do It

“Maybe someone else should operate them,” he said. “Let a nonprofit agency or the Sierra Club operate them.”

Of an estimated 300 to 400 offers by property owners to dedicate land for public access, fewer than 20 sites have been opened to the public, most of them by the county. The agency that accepts an offer of land for an accessway also has to accept the responsibility for operation and maintenance costs before the accessway can be opened to the public, officials said.

The land-use plan encourages the use of state and federal funds to develop accessways, and also establishes a fund from developer fees that can be used to pay for the construction and maintenance of new accessways.

In response to the county’s complaints about insufficient funds, Stebbins said, “We would have more than $100,000 available to them instantly” from developer fees if the county wanted to begin opening accessways. “All the bureaucrats have to do is set it up,” she said.

The county and the commission are continuing negotiations on accessways, but no agreement has been reached.

Asked if there are any enforcement measures to make the county open the access points listed in the plan, Stebbins responded “If you are asking can we force the county to implement its own plan, which is the adopted policy of the County of Los Angeles . . . our role is to determine and make a formal finding to ensure that the (county’s implementation plans) are consistent with the land-use plan.”

Applying Pressure

The county needs commission approval for the ordinances it is drafting to implement the land-use plan. Should the county come up with “woefully inadequate” access provisions, public and political pressure could be applied to urge the county to implement its own plan, she said.

Meanwhile, county officials complain that the Coastal Conservancy, a state funding agency independent of the Coastal Commission but closely aligned with its philosophies, has not responded to the county’s request for a $1.1-million grant for beach access improvements.

“Our application has been in since last October with the conservancy, and they have yet to either schedule us on their agenda to hear our package or to respond to us telling what the disposition of that request is,” Charness said.

Peter Grenell, the state conservancy’s executive officer, said the agency is reviewing the county’s request for funds and is awaiting construction estimates from the county.

Told of Grenell’s comment, Charness said, “They are awaiting cost estimates only on the projects they want to do . . . because that’s what interests them.” The conservancy has not sought details on projects the county wants to do but has pressed instead for more public accessways and beaches to be opened by the county, Charness contended.

‘Embarrassingly Long Time’

Coastal planners said the county has taken “an embarrassingly long time” to take any action on two beaches--Dan Blocker (between Escondido and Corral) and El Sol (near Leo Carrillo)--that have been in public ownership for years but have never been opened to the public.

The county cites a lack of funds in explaining its decision not open Dan Blocker and El Sol.

Dan Blocker is a craggy beach near Latigo Canyon Road where determined fishermen and others have made an unauthorized accessway through the chain-link fence. Public facilities would have to be built before it could safely be opened to the public, Charness said.

El Sol, a small but particularly scenic beach at the western end of Malibu, also has remained in limbo because “the department doesn’t have the funding to operate additional county beaches,” Charness said.

Coastal planners say they hope that the recent resolution of a six-year dispute between the state and the county over liability and maintenance of state-owned county-operated beaches will “break the logjam” and speed the opening of Dan Blocker and an adjoining beach the conservancy has committed to buy for about $1 million.

In the contract, the state agreed to pay the county $5 million over the next three years to refurbish and maintain eight beaches, including Dan Blocker, and will provide the county $1 million a year for the remainder of the 25-year contract.

‘Tough Nut to Crack’

Grenell said that the conservancy provides grants for construction of public access projects, but not for operation and maintenance. The problem of finding funds for ongoing costs is “a tough nut to crack,” he said.

Grenell said the conservancy itself is facing a fiscal crisis. It is “running out of funds” from a 1984 bond issue and is looking to proposed bond measures for the 1988 ballot as a source of future funds, he said.

Critics remain skeptical about whether the county, seen as a pro-development entity controlled by a conservative majority on the Board of Supervisors, is likely to pay for increased public access in Malibu.

Putting the county in control of protecting the beach from overdevelopment is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, they said.

“The Coastal Commission has done its job to provide access where there was no access, and now it’s up to the county to implement (the plan),” said Margot Feuer, an environmental activist and 20-year Malibu resident.

“To say that the county has dragged its feet (in providing public access) is the understatement of the decade,” she said. “The question is, how is the Coastal Commission going to watchdog this plan?”

Dubious Commitment

Brown, chairman of the Sierra Club’s Santa Monica Mountains Task Force, also doubts the county’s commitment to public access.

“The county would like to turn the beaches into a preserve for the rich,” he said. “They did extend the 434 (bus service) to Leo Carrillo Beach, but otherwise I generally do not see the county as being sensitive to the average beachgoer.”

Brown said he fears that because of county inaction on property owners’ 21-year offers to give land for public access, the offers will expire without benefit to the public.

“My guess is that out of all this we may not end up with much access,” he said.

Commission officials said they are still evaluating the effects of a recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling that rejected the commission’s requirement of public access in the case of Ventura homeowners Patrick and Marilyn Nollan.

The ruling will cause a closer scrutiny of proposed access requirements by the commission, but it does not affect the agency’s fundamental authority to impose conditions on development, according to Ralph Faust, the commission’s chief counsel.

The ruling amounts to “a lawyers’ relief act,” he said lightly, because it undoubtedly will prompt considerable litigation on coastal rulings.

Within Guidelines

Faust said that the commission will be acting within the guidelines of the Supreme Court ruling if it imposes a beach access requirement for projects that would otherwise reduce such access.

Key beach access provisions of the Malibu coastal land-use plan include the following:

- New vertical accessways are to be built along the coastline, with highest priority given beaches where access opportunities are least adequate. The seven beach areas singled out as having top priority are Encinal, Lechuza Point, Carbon, La Costa, Las Flores, Las Tunas and Topanga.

The accessways are to be placed as close as every 1,000 feet where population density is high and the distance from the beach to the nearest road is short, according to the plan. Greater spacing, as far as 2,500 feet apart, is to be allowed in less densely populated areas and where the terrain would make accessways difficult and expensive to build.

This “will distribute the access in such a way as to avoid overuse of any one area, while recognizing the different characteristics of the beaches in Malibu,” the plan said.

It requires owners to dedicate land for access as part of all new non-residential development and for new residential development on lots with 75 feet or more of frontage.

To assuage concerns that this policy would create an overabundance of accessways that would disrupt local neighborhoods, the plan says that once accessways are open at the prescribed intervals, further access offers will not be required.

- All new development between the ocean and the first public road will require the property owners to offer land for “lateral” public access along the shoreline, unless such access would jeopardize public safety.

The plan allows passive recreational uses, such as strolling, sunbathing and picnicking. The county originally would have allowed visitors only to walk along over private land.

Because Broad Beach is exceptionally wide, the plan requires new development to provide an 25-foot easement for public access from the shoreline inland.

On all other Malibu beaches, which are generally not as wide as Broad Beach, access is to be provided from the shoreline roughly to the perimeter of the new building, except for a 10-foot wide privacy buffer.

Some homeowners, including Malibu Road resident Cally Curtis, believe that the plan infringes on private property rights in requiring public access so close to private homes.

“All but 10 feet of our property is no longer private, though we still have to pay taxes and accept liability,” she said.

Curtis said she lobbied for the 1972 coastal initiative, but now believes the commission has exceeded the original intent. The commission, she said, is improperly requiring access without paying property owners for it.

She and her husband filed a lawsuit in 1984 to contest these issues, she said. The lawsuit is pending, she said.

- The plan provides that only small facilities such as lifeguard stations, restrooms, seawalls or concession stands may be built on the sandy beach to help preserve the seashore for public recreation.

Construction of major commercial facilities such as hotels or restaurants will not be permitted on sandy beaches.

The plan includes a controversial provision for the construction of a recreational vehicle park at Zuma Beach, but this idea generated so much opposition that “it’s dead,” according to Ted Reed, director of the county Department of Beaches and Harbors.

- To protect ocean and mountain views, the plan establishes a three-story height limit and includes provisions for ensuring that ocean views are not blocked by coastal development.

Beach access protections are among the most important in the long-awaited land-use plan for Malibu, said Feuer, a trustee for the nonprofit Mountains Restoration Trust.

“I can’t think of a more critical aspect of the plan (than beach access),” she said. “If we don’t achieve that, we will have wasted 15 years.’