This letter to the City Council focuses on the Crummer Project, but let me say at the outset, I favor timely approval of any project that satisfies generally applicable federal, state and local laws, zoning regulations and building codes. Citizen participation in all phases of environmental and related reviews is commendable, so long as it does not lead to endless delays and de facto blockage of specific projects. But what is not acceptable is disguised financial interests, cloaked as apparent public concerns, attempting to use the regulatory process for commercial financial advantage. That appears to be what is going on with respect to the Crummer Project.
Planning Commission Submission
I was prompted six weeks ago to write the Planning Commission about the Crummer Project because of a wrong-headed flyer which I received in the mail from Green Acres LLC. Nothing in the flyer disclosed who the Green Acres LLC was, much less that it was financed by a party with a financial interest in stalling the Crummer Project.
The assumption underlying the Green Acres flyer was that self-appointed, albeit unidentified individuals have the right to usurp indefinitely the prerogative of property owners to develop their property. Appropriate local zoning is one thing, but stopping well-planned development after years of delays was, in my view, beyond the pale.
The Crummer applicant has dedicated two acres of his property to the City and contributed one million dollars for the construction of new athletic fields. The five homes he has planned for the property would add millions more in future property taxes. Malibu, particularly our schools, children and grandchildren, would benefit from this development and these resources.
So what was the counter-argument made by Green Acres and its unidentified financial backers? Only that when driving down PCH, one would see the roofs of a couple of new houses, rather than barren land. But neither Green Acres nor the public generally have any right to have the land in question remain barren forever. Sooner or later the property will be developed, perhaps with multiple condos, rather than a few homes, as has been the case elsewhere along PCH in Malibu.
Having learned that the Planning Commission had approved the project, I assumed that it would be readily approved by the Malibu City Council.
Phone Survey
Having put the Crummer Project out of my mind, I was startled this week to receive a phone call from a person purporting to do a citizen survey, probing the extent of public support for the Crummer Project. The caller did not identify who sponsored the call or what his interest was in the project. He asked whether I had heard of the project, which he briefly described. I said yes and that I supported its approval. He asked if I would feel differently if I knew that the project was being built on a geologically unstable land susceptible to faulting and similar instability. I responded that I was sure that issue, among others, had been reviewed and project should be promptly approved if it was in compliance with applicable law and regulations.
I hung up puzzled for two reasons. First, who was paying for this phone survey? Surely not private citizens. And second, why bring up geological concerns which I was sure had been thoroughly considered, except to create the misleading impression of public opposition to the project.
So I started asking questions and pretty quickly learned that the developer of the hotel project adjacent to Pepperdine was likely behind both the flyer and the phone survey discussed above. Apparently, the hotel developer believes that his project and the rates he can charge will be higher if the Crummer Project is never built. Of course, this private financial consideration, the real motivation behind the flyer and phone survey, was never disclosed.
Next, I investigated whether the geological issue mentioned in the phone call had been considered in the review process. I confirmed that it had been thoroughly reviewed many times and in many different ways. First, the California legislature had specifically reclassified the property in 2007 based upon updated geological testing done with the most up-to-date carbon dating techniques. Then, the project underwent an extended series of environmental reviews which covered each and every issue relating to geology and soils, as well as hydrology and water quality. To imply in the phone survey that these issues had not been considered was duplicitous, to put it mildly.
In conclusion, what we have here is a classic Trojan Horse. The real interest hiding behind so-called public concerns is a naked financial aim to highjack the regulatory process for competitive reasons. The Crummer Project, which has undergone eight years of public and transparent review, covering all issues of public concern, ought to be promptly approved.