(The following letter was addressed to Mayor Joan House and City Council members regarding a proposed 20-foot wide private drive off Sweetwater Mesa Road.)
The NIMBYs of Sweetwater Mesa so successfully clouded the access road issue that somehow the facts have been misplaced.
At every council meeting, the applicants answered, in incredible detail, all the questions and concerns of staff. Then, the opposition at the very last minute brings up the “silver bullet” new information that they have only just discovered that the council must see as a reason to deny the application. Very polite apologies for the lack of notice, etc. Remember the “subdivision to 500 lots,” “part of coastal slope trail,” “highway from Piuma to PCH,” “Planning Commission was misled,” “road access exits to Piuma,” “easement by necessity,” “prescriptive right,” and last night’s bombshell, “collusion of the previous owner with the new owner.”
Our land planner and attorney did a fabulous job of answering with facts and accurate case law in refuting each and every concern. The opposition did succeed, however, just before each vote, to blur the issue. All of a sudden, the matter was a little too complicated, omissions may be present. We would be sent back for more work to answer inaccurate or incredibly unlikely scenarios. After we had satisfied staff with the facts, the opposition would then bring up new issues, and the old ones, to attempt to confuse everyone all over again.
Last night’s innuendo of collusion with a previous owner was a similar beauty. Tough to dispel at a public forum! Let’s look at the facts once again. Stephen Vernon and his family only owned half of the property before selling it to the applicants. The other half was owned by the estate of Edwin I. Fischer. Stephen Vernon bought his one-half of the property separately from his other land holdings in the area. Stephen Vernon did not reserve any access easements to the south over the property to obtain more valuable access to PCH. How about the true reason why Stephen Vernon sold the land? That was because he was tired of fighting (about 84 years old at the time) to get this land developed. He had had to sue the unreasonable landowner to the south for access that was a deeded easement. Another unreasonable citizen had just appealed the Malibu Planning Commission decision for approving the road and he was faced with further fighting and delays.
The present owners have bent over backwards to allay the fears of the neighbors that had been stirred up by an opposition not interested in the facts. Well, the facts and the record speak for themselves. The only expert evidence in the record from traffic, engineering, biology, geology, survey, planning, etc. supports the applicants.
Why should the courts be forced to decide this issue? It is an expense, hassle and waste of time for everyone involved. It is not conceivable that the courts will support this regulatory taking by the city.
The applicants are all proud United States citizens. Before each City Council meeting, we all state the Pledge of Allegiance. The last five words say it beautifully, “liberty and justice for all.” There is no addendum to this that excludes the applicants.
Brian A. Sweeney