Attorney tells commission coastal rules must account for "economically beneficial use" or face takings claims

Don Smith, an attorney and long‑time coastal consultant, used his public‑comment time at the Feb. 19 Ventura County Planning Commission meeting to press staff to revise how "economically beneficial use" is applied in the coastal zone. Smith said his firm submitted correspondence to the commission on Feb. 13 and requested additional consideration and direction from the planning commission and Board of Supervisors.

Smith told commissioners the planning staff's interpretation treats upland chaparral throughout parts of the Western Santa Monica Mountains as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), and that under that approach an owner of a small existing home could be prevented from expanding, even if an undeveloped parcel in the same area could be issued a 10,000‑square‑foot building pad. He argued the county's interpretation should heed U.S. Supreme Court takings precedents, citing Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard and Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, and invoking Penn Central's regulatory‑takings framework.

"We believe very strongly this is a constitutional taking," Smith said, urging a careful legal vetting and coordination with the Board of Supervisors, which he said is already considering code amendments and staff direction. Smith described his coastal practice history and asked commissioners for staff direction and a fuller review of the Local Coastal Program's treatment of economically beneficial use.

Planning Director Ward acknowledged the letter and confirmed the Board of Supervisors is considering code amendments and policy work; no formal action on the legal claim was taken at the hearing. Smith indicated he was available to answer questions and provided his correspondence to the record.