In the last several editions, a guest editorial by Rick Wallace and a letter responding, make statements regarding the Local Coastal Program that are untrue. I served as the secretary of the city’s LCP Committee from its inception in 1994 until the Council disbanded the committee after the 2000 election.
Everyone now is concerned that the legislature removed Malibu’s authority to prepare their Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and assigned the task to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Wallace alleges that “our earlier no-growth environment Council delayed on purpose.” This is totally untrue. In compliance with Coastal regulations, a complete LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) had been submitted by the Malibu Planning director for Coastal staff review March 23, 2000, months before the legislature initiated AB 988. This plan was developed by a paid consultant and an LCP Committee appointed by the Council. Every Councilmember since 1994 had made appointments to that committee, except Mr. Kearsley and Mrs. Barovsky. Altogether, 18 residents served on the 10-member LCP Committee at various times. I was told by Coastal staff at a recent meeting that shortly after the 2000 election, the city withdrew that LUP and told them not to review it. The rumor has been that at a local meeting on March 16, 2000, Coastal staff rejected that LUP-that is untrue. Although a rough, partial draft LUP was sent to Coastal staff in November 1999, the complete and updated March 2000 draft was not submitted until March 23, a week after the March 16 meeting occurred. Had the city not withdrawn the 2000 LUP from consideration, and had informed the legislators that the LUP they wanted had already been prepared, the legislature would have had no excuse for the action they took.
Why did the city withdraw an LUP that was developed by a paid consultant and a citizens’ committee the Council appointed? That is the question-and since the action to withdraw was taken after the 2000 Council was seated-they are the body that needs to answer.
Lucile Keller