The Planning Commission wrestles over wording to appease those who complain. Primary view areas designated such as patios and decks.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to the Malibu Times
Complaints that proposed amendments to the city’s zoning code would give the planning manager too much power, among other issues, complicated the discussion at Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting.
The proposed amendments to the city’s zoning code are supposed to simplify the planning review process and address the granting of development permits, which are permits that do not require variances or extended public review. Also, several definitions and design standards were clarified.
Development permits fall into two categories: plot plan reviews, which the planning manager can process alone, and site plan reviews, which require he consult with city staff and specialists. But it had never been specified what items qualified for a plot plan review, except that they be projects that do not require any other discretionary approvals. With the newly proposed definition, which includes a name change to administrative plan review, 12 different items are specified.
Several people said this gave too much power to the planning manager because many of the items that previously fell under site plan review now would be classified under administrative review. But Interim Planning Manager Ed Knight pointed out that all decisions could still be appealed.
An element that troubled the planning commissioners was another item listed under what is acceptable for administrative plan review- remedial grading of up to 5,000 cubic yards. Remedial grading is done to fix geological deficiencies on a site. Although Senior Planning Consultant Thomas Gorham said this implied a person could not cumulatively grade more than this amount, it was not specified. But Commissioner Richard Carrigan spoke about a scenario in which a person applies for a permit under the threshold, and then comes back less than a year later with another permit application that makes the grading cumulatively more than the allowable amount. But Gorham and Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich said the word “cumulative” was implied, and not necessary to add. But after further discussion, the planning staff and Kovacevich finally agreed to add the word.
View from here
Another point for which the commission demanded better wording was the definition of primary view corridor. Currently, a primary view had been defined as an impressive scene that somebody could look at from the first floor of their home, such as the ocean or mountains. A person has the right to not have that blocked. But the new definition would designate the viewing area to specific types of rooms and decks, or patios. The planning manager determines the primary view. Also, it specifies that the view can only extend a maximum of 180 degrees in width from the view area This troubled the commissioners because they said it could create a situation in which the planning manager could reduce that amount, since it only specifies a maximum and does not guarantee a person will get his full 180 degrees. But Kovacevich said he did not interpret it that way. After some grappling, the sentence was finally changed to be more specific.
While the item was being discussed, Commission Chair Robert Adler became annoyed when he found out the proposal would be going back to the Interim Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee before heading to the City Council. Knight said City Manager Katie Lichtig had asked that it be brought to the two-person committee of councilmembers Jeff Jennings and Andy Stern for a status report before going to the full City Council.
“So the IZO Advisory Committee is sort of overseeing and advising the Planning Commission,” Adler said. “How interesting.”
If the subcommittee were to make any changes to the commission’s recommendations, it would have to go back to the commission before going to the City Council.
Malibu Bay deal questioned
Also at the meeting, Malibu Community Action Network (CAN) members Ozzie Silna and Steve Uhring asked about some of the items of the recently approved Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Development Agreement. Uhring pointed out how the one that allowed MBC President Jerry Perenchio to hook up any wastewater treatment facility that might be built to some of his various properties was not included in the staff report when the commission reviewed the agreement two weeks ago. He wondered if the commission or the planning department had been hiding something.
But the commissioners all said they were unaware of that item at the time. And Carrigan said he had spoken to Scott Albright, the city planner in charge of the agreement, and he had said he didn’t know about that feature until the day it came before the council last Monday.