The inference that these letter-writers would have us make is that it is OK to have the LCP restrict development rights of property owners who haven’t built yet. Why is that OK? A person or business who buys land that was not designated as an ESHA, intending to build on it, is entitled to build on it. If the State so severely restricts development rights that the owner of the property cannot build as intended on his land, the State has effectively condemned the property. I haven’t heard Coastal mention condemnation proceedings or providing compensation to property-owners yet. Have I missed something?
To bring up Pepperdine and the Bay Company as though they are the only targets of the State and the Coastal Commission’s power trip is a good example of engaging one’s word-processor before engaging one’s brain. Where do you think that Pepperdine got approval to do the massive, Hoover Dam-sized work they are doing in the canyon uphill from the present campus? They got it from the State of California via its Coastal Commission, that’s who! The City of Malibu never reviewed it. The State’s LCP if adopted won’t apply to Pepperdine anyway because the university is not within the city.
As to the Malibu Bay Company owned by Jerry Perenchio, the Coastal Commission, by attempting to turn Malibu into one giant State Park, could deprive Mr. Perenchio of his right to develop his land. It is no wonder that he is making campaign contributions to every candidate for governor that he can find. I personally believe that the development plans the Bay Company has come up with so far are reasonable. More importantly, the Bay Company has demonstrated its willingness to work with local government and to compromise with residents to resolve disagreements, which is more than the State of California has demonstrated.
Don Maclay