The recent editorial submitted to The Malibu Times by representatives of five organizations has only one point with which I agree: The Malibu Coast needs to be protected and shared. However, the Coastal Commission’s draft LCP does not achieve that goal.
Mr. van de Hoek, in his zeal to cheerlead for the Coastal Commission’s Land Use policies, has the local control issue all wrong. First, he says “local control” is about the authority to issue permits under an LCP. Roy, obviously, does not understand that simply administrating policy set by nonelected, outside regulators is not ‘local control.” The City Council is fighting for the right of the residents, through their elected officials, to establish the policies that are in compliance with the California Coastal Act. For instance, currently, the City Council permits 1,200 square foot guest homes. The CC staff is recommending that the limit be 750 with no stated justification. If residents don’t like the city’s policy, they can vote out the council members who voted for it. If they don’t like the Coastal Commission’s policy, they have no democratic way to seek recourse.
Second, how can Mr. van de Hoek make statements about a meeting between the city and the Coastal Commission which he did not attend? As far as I know, he did not ask anyone from the city to give him an account of the meeting. Had he bothered to ask, he would have discovered memos of understanding which clearly show the city did its level best to work with the Coastal Commission to bring forward an LCP that would best serve Malibu residents as well as the larger community. It is irresponsible that none of the five people signing for organizations in the editorial did their due diligence before making their public statements. These coastal protection issues are too critical to treat with such bias and misinformation.
And, finally, I can’t imagine what Mr. van de Hoek and the other signers find so wonderful about the Coastal Commission’s ordering us off the ball fields, rezoning the property that would have replaced those fields so that now only a hotel can go there, mandating unrestricted parking on Bird View and Cliffside (and all of Point Dume for that matter), instituting an illogical access plan with unrealistic time lines, mandating the city require or provide for public view points on residential beach front or bluff properties, telling the city it must spend public and private acquisition funds on public accesses instead of building much needed active recreational facilities that are both visitor and community serving, and mandating a host of other punitive policies that exceed the Commission authority.
These CCC policies, some already determined to be illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, are then coupled with a brick-wall approach to the city’s concerns.
Obviously Mr. Van de Hoek places a different value on the rights of Malibu residents than does this City Council.
Sharon Barovsky
Malibu councilmember