.

LETTER: Broad Beach Sandstorm Clouds GHAD's Beach Grab

Malibu resident Hans Laetz asks the Malibu City Council to table Monday night's planned discussion on the Broad Beach Restoration Project.

Late Monday night, the city council will vote again on the Broad Beach sand replenishment project. I think it's important that Malibu residents know the following.

First, the project has significantly changed since the GHAD was approved. The applicant has declared an emergency and removed the sand project from the legal protections of CEQA.

The project itself has changed. Rather than build a public beach from the emergency rock revetment towards the sea, the GHAD secretly switched to a proposed a "privacy buffer" atop the rocks, off limits to the public for between 55 to 102 feet. About 21 percent of the new beach would be sliced off for the privacy buffer, at the western end (where the two access points cross) the privacy buffer would be 40 percent (!) of the new sand.

It gets worse. Because much of the new sand will wash away immediately, the state estimates that the "public" section of the beach could erode up to the "privacy buffer" within five years. This would "raise the potential for renewed access conflicts at Broad Beach. The potential for enforcement by private security guards ... reminiscent of previous conflicts over public access and use of Broad Beach exists, and it would be particularly inappropriate as the buffer would OVERLIE PUBLIC LANDS" (all quotes from the state analysis).

Yes, those rocks are on public land, "The emergency revetment presents a physical barrier to lateral access for beach goers who are otherwise legally entitled to use (public lands and easements) for recreational purposes. In total, more than 94 percent (±1.16 acres) of these public lateral access easements lie beneath or landward of the existing emergency revetment.

"The existing rocks cover a total of approximately 3.0 acres, and cover or cut off access to a total of approximately 2.02 acres of existing public trust land and existing lateral access easements." The rocks were placed on the property of the California State Lands Commission, in trust for the people of California, WITHOUT THAT AGENCY's PERMISSION.

At completion, we would get a total of 15.6 acres of dry sand beach. The state says the constructed beach would immediately undergo reworking by waves and tides ... narrowing the beach by approximately 30 percent after the first year to a total dry beach area of approximately 11 acres. Of this total beach area, the privacy buffer would prohibit public access on 3.5 acres (32 percent) of this new beach which, it should be noted, would be located on public trust land.

Plus, the new sand dune "nature reserve" would be crossed by 130-plus paths from homes to the water.

Worse, the city council is being asked to approved a Coastal Development Permit -BEFORE- the project is finalized. All control is being passed from our elected representatives to three appointed politicians in Sacramento.

I am in favor of the sand replenishment. The Broad Beach homeowners were justified in the emergency rock installation. And a new beach needs to be built, in exchange.

But the GHAD is getting enormous public benefit, here.  They should be able to build their new beach, a new PUBLIC beach. If they balk, the state will order them to remove the rocks from state property. They may be an emergency stopgap, but they are not a legal permanent solution.

Under Malibu's LCP, vertical beach access is required every 1,000 feet. There should be five beach accessways on Broad Beach, not two. Of course it's too late to add three vertical accessways, that would never work. But land-side Malibu residents are entitled by law to use public beaches, to park near them, to have facilities to use them.

OK, city council. You punted it on the lagoon, on PCH, on countless other coastal issues. It's time to step up for Malibu residents, not all of whom live on the beach.

Table the measure on tonight's agenda. Ask the city attorney to come back with a CDP process that keeps the city at the table, then get to work, and balance and protect the rights and needs of Broad Beach residents, and those of us on the other side of the road.

Hans Laetz, Malibu

Patch accepts and publishes letters to the editor and commentary regarding any relevant local issue. The views expressed in the above commentary do not reflect the opinion of the publication, its editor and/or its writers. Emails may be edited for length and clarity. Have an opinion? Write to the editor of your Patch site at malibu@patch.com.

Broad Beach Scandal November 27, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Hans Laetsz is correct. The Broad Beach GHAD should be legally disolved. The Broad Beach folks have been dishonest right from the beginning. There should be a criminal investigation by the Attorney General into the reprehensible conduct of the BB-GHAD folks. This scandal smells fishy!
Cindy Vandor November 27, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Zan Marquis, Marshall Grossman, Steve Levitan, and the rest of the GHAD Board have ruined Broad Beach. The GHAD Board has not been honest. There should be a criminal investigation of the GHAD Board members and their attorneys. Shut down the GHAD.
Hans Laetz November 27, 2012 at 04:36 PM
It's not criminal, it's foolish. The city council voted 4-1 last night to hand all control of the project over to the state agencies. "It's not like Malibu won't have a chance to weigh in with an opinion," one council member offered hopefully. Yeah, that worked really swell at the lagoon. Just like at the lagoon, this project is not all bad. But our city council voted to "conserve our resources" by handing over its regulatory powers on this to the state. It is a travesty that our local government -- again -- runs away from local governance. Last night, the council voiced confidence that the state would take care of us on this one. Great. I do feel we have been misled by the GHAD. Where the hell did this "privacy buffer" come from? That was an unpublicized switcheroo. The good news is that it looks like the privacy buffer could be rejected by the State Lands Commission -- maybe. We don't know. You see, the local city just handed control of the project to the State Lands Commission, and lord knows what will happen now.
marshall coben December 21, 2012 at 07:16 AM
thanks hans for your hard work on researching this (again). your input is invaluable.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something