{"id":1248,"date":"2014-04-24T16:00:42","date_gmt":"2014-04-24T23:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/?p=1248"},"modified":"2022-08-01T15:43:03","modified_gmt":"2022-08-01T22:43:03","slug":"mountains-coastal-protection-plan-approved-for-la-county","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/2014\/04\/24\/mountains-coastal-protection-plan-approved-for-la-county\/","title":{"rendered":"Mountains coastal protection plan approved for LA County"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some laud Local Coastal Program, others see it as government overreach<\/strong><\/p>\n

Source of this article: The Thousand Oaks Acorn<\/a>, April 24, 2014<\/p>\n

Environmentalists see the recent approval of the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> Local Coastal Program as a milestone. For Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the April 10 vote in favor of the new land-use plan was a personal victory.<\/p>\n

Yaroslavsky had championed the California Coastal Commission\u2019s landmark LCP for more than a decade. The plan guides future development in the 80-square-mile Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> Coastal Zone that includes, among other areas, the unincorporated Los Angeles County terrain south of the Conejo<\/span> and Las Virgenes valleys.<\/p>\n

Yaroslavsky spoke to the coastal commissioners at their meeting in Santa Barbara<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a historic day for the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span>,\u201d Yaroslavsky said. \u201cThis is a very special place. We consider it the Big Sur of Southern California. (The mountains) have some of deepest canyons, some of the most beautiful scenery.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plan will protect mountain resources against pollution and what Yaroslavsky called \u201cill-conceived development\u201d inside an urban national park.<\/p>\n

At the meeting, a photograph of an access road carved into a mountain leading up to a mansion was used as an example of the kind of development that would not be allowed under the new policy.<\/p>\n

Not everybody was happy with the new restrictions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

NO NEW GRAPES\u2014 While existing grape gardens can stay, no new vineyards can be planted in the Santa Monica Mountains under the newly approved Local Coastal Program. The decision is controversial.<\/p><\/div>\n

Existing mountain vineyards are safe under the approved plan, but additional grape-growing plots will be prohibited.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> are simply not the place for additional vineyards,\u201d said Yaroslavsky, adding that the vineyards contribute to soil erosion and loss of wildlife habitat.<\/p>\n

So-called hobby gardens will continue to be allowed under the plan, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not the case that we\u2019re chasing agriculture out of the mountains that is now being used,\u201d Yaroslavsky said. But without the plan, big agriculture and development threatened to \u201cmar a national treasure,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Yaroslavsky said another benefit of the plan is that landowners from Monte Nido, Malibou Lake, Cold Creek and other local rural communities will be able to work directly with county employees in Calabasas on their permits and land issues rather than having to go through both the county and the Coastal Commission, which had led to expensive delays.<\/p>\n

Grape growers upset<\/span><\/p>\n

Fred Gaines, a Calabasas City Council member, spoke to the Coastal Commission as the attorney for Rancho Francisco in Malibu<\/span> and the Coastal Coalition of Family Farmers, which was formed to oppose the LCP. Gaines said public hearings were not held for seven of the 10 years that the plan was being developed.<\/p>\n

He said a 30-day review of the 1,000-page plan was not enough time for a careful reading and understanding of the document, and that a 179-page addendum introduced one day before the commission meeting should have been enough to postpone the vote.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou can\u2019t call that a normal process,\u201d Gaines said.<\/p>\n

And, he said, there were mistakes in the some of the plan\u2019s maps.<\/p>\n

\u201cRemove the maps and let them be part of further discussions. Extend the time to adopt (the plan) or remove the agricultural conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gaines said a prohibition on agriculture is illegal and he believes the county and the Coastal Commission have \u201cgone too far\u201d with the vineyard prohibition.<\/p>\n

\u201c The new Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> wine trail has been a great addition to our local economy and tourism, and a wonderful way for visitors to enjoy the Santa Monica Mountains,\u201d Gaines said. \u201cTo address environmental concerns, new vineyards could be limited to certain areas and be required to minimize fertilizer, pesticides and water use. Of the 50,000 acres in the LCP area, there are only about 200 acres of vineyards. A complete ban on all new vineyards is unreasonable and unnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Agricultural interests in the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> run deep, land-use consultant Don Schmitz said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWho can possibly assert that agricultural uses are not feasible in the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span>?\u201d Schmitz said. \u201cNo one has done the analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Jess Thomas, an Old Agoura resident and co-owner of a 2-acre parcel in the coastal zone, said he did not favor Sonoma vineyards being \u201ccloned\u201d in the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI want it to remain habitat. . . .\u201d Thomas said. \u201cThe LCP will prevent intensive new development but protect the lifestyles of the homeowners now.\u201d<\/p>\n

Preserving a way of life<\/span><\/p>\n

Others also spoke in favor of the LCP.<\/p>\n

Phil Culberg, a resident of the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> for four decades, said the mountains\u2019 \u201cbeauty, tranquility and scientific discovery\u201d should be preserved for generations to come.<\/p>\n

Culberg\u2019s wife, Leah, spoke in more practical terms.<\/p>\n

\u201cI wanted less smog,\u201d she said. \u201cI wanted to let my kids eat eggs from our chickens. We have watched neighbors dam creeks, plant vineyards. The water table has dropped over 100 feet. It sucked up the groundwater, making the chaparral even drier . . . and leaving us with even less water to fight a fire when it comes,\u201d Leah Culberg said.<\/p>\n

Ruth Gerson, president of Recreation and Equestrian Coalition, said she wants to see the traditions of the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span> continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have more than 40 years guarding traditions,\u201d she said. \u201cEquestrians are the original stewards of the land.\u201d<\/p>\n

The audience applauded the Coastal Commission\u2019s unani- mous vote allowing the county to have regulatory control over the mountains by the sea. Kim Lamorie, president of Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, commended Yaroslavsky for backing the plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe spoke eloquently and passionately about the importance of the landuse plan policies and the significant time, energy, community outreach and dollars that have been invested in protecting the coastal resources of the Santa Monica Mountains<\/span>,\u201d Lamorie said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a great outcome,\u201d Yaroslavsky said.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Some laud Local Coastal Program, others see it as government overreach Source of this article: The Thousand Oaks Acorn, April 24, 2014 Environmentalists see the recent approval of the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program as a milestone. For Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the April 10 vote in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,50,12,63,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-development","category-habitat-improvement","category-los-angeles","category-malibu","category-santa-monica-mountains"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1248"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3586,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1248\/revisions\/3586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/venturacountytrails.org\/WP\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}