In my letter published in your June 26, 2002 issue, I referred to the Coastal Commission’s negative comments regarding the March 2000 draft of the LCP (Local Coastal Plan) submitted by the City to the Commission contained in the last paragraph on Page 7 of the Jan. 10, 2002 “Initial Draft of the LCP-Land Use Plan” prepared by the Commission for Malibu (“the Commission’s 2002 draft”).
In Lucile Keller’s letter published in your July 11, 2002 issue, she stated I was in error. She alleges that according to an informant from the Commission, the Commission’s negative comments “…pertained to a partial LUP submitted (by the City to the Commissioner) in November, 1999, not the completed March 2000 draft.”
In the paragraph of the Commissioner’s 2002 draft to which I referred there is no ambiguity and no reference to the City’s November 1999 draft. It states clearly: “City staff submitted a draft LCP to Commission’s staff for informal review in March 2000…the City was informed verbally by Commission staff that the document was not sufficient in detail or content to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.”
It is obvious from the above quote that the Commission was referring to the March 2000 draft when referred to “the document.” If there was an error in identifying the document to which the Commission addressed its negative comments, it was not mine.
The negative comments by the Commission in its 2002 draft clearly pertain to the City’s 2000 draft. If Ms. Keller’s informant from the Commission is correct and the negative comments pertain to the City’s 1999 draft, it appears that the Commission may well have concluded that both the City’s 1999 draft and the City’s 2000 draft “were not sufficient in detail or content to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.”
David Kagon