A Malibu Township Council meeting on Saturday almost immediately broke into two camps with diametrically opposed views about the impact and meaning of the Civic Center development guidelines.
Approximately 25 members of the community attended the meeting. A panel of five invited to discuss the guidelines consisted of Mayor Tom Hasse, Councilmember Jeff Jennings, former planning commissioners Jo Ruggles and Charlene Kabrin, and a former developer and now Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy member Jay Liebig.
Efrom Fader, president of the Malibu Township Council (MTC), began the meeting by stating that the MTC’s purpose in holding the meeting was to disseminate information only, not to make any recommendations. But that view was not shared by a number of others in the room who came to oppose the guidelines.
Councilmembers have indicated it is no longer a question of whether there is going to be development in the Civic Center and that the guidelines are merely an attempt to do some planning and see the area develop in an orderly fashion. Furthermore, city officials said all previous Malibu city councils had agreed that the city’s commercial development would take place in the Civic Center area and that development was now part of the General Plan and zoned accordingly. There are also now about a half dozen commercial projects already working their way through the pipeline based on the General Plan.
Liebig sparked the meeting’s first controversial tone by questioning what he claimed were inconsistencies between the draft design guidelines and the General Plan that was adopted in 1995. “This is an attempt to change the law and do away with the protections we thought we had,” said Liebig. Audience member and former City Council candidate John Wall echoed Liebig’s concerns over the legality of the draft design guidelines.
Jennings responded to their argument stating that the guidelines do not and will not give any entitlements to anybody. The entitlements come from the General Plan. He said the guidelines exist only to provide guidance to property owners and the public.
Former Planning Commis-sioner Charleen Kabrin disagreed and added that she couldn’t find the guidelines consistent with the General Plan. She later commented in a phone interview that the draft guidelines increased the height of buildings over the residential scale. Another inconsistency, Kabrin said, is the General Plan calls for natural open space, whereas the guidelines allow hardscape (patios, plazas, etc.) as a portion of the open space. She further raised concerns over the adequacy of parking as well as the need to prevent PCH from becoming a “parking lot,” thus making it difficult for safety services to get to Malibu residents.
Sarah Dixon, a representative from the Malibu Coalition For Slow Growth, showed a model of the coalition’s ideas for developing the Civic Center area. According to the group’s written statement, the model represents its “Central Park alternative to extensive commercial development in the Malibu Creek delta and historical wetlands, based on what we’ve heard community members say we need and want.”
That model incorporated a new city hall, a cultural arts center, more baseball and soccer fields, and streamside dining. It also called for wetlands that could be wild or tame. Dixon said tame wetlands would allow Malibu residents to use the area as a park while still providing natural areas for birds.
Malibu resident Tod Williamson, who has made Malibu his home for approximately 25 years, earned audience applause for suggesting the city buy the disputed property. Williamson queried, “Can’t you guys make an effort [to buy this land] rather than selling this off to the highest bidder?”
Mayor Hasse said the land is already owned privately and that raising the $80 million needed to purchase the 80 acres of undeveloped, commercially zoned land would be a “mind-boggling” task.
Jennings indicated that the council conducted a poll in 1998 to see if the citizens of Malibu would be willing to pass a bond to buy the Civic Center land and support a wetland. However, the ’98 poll indicated the community would not support it.
Malibu resident Herbert Broking said he wants the City Council to pass a moratorium on any further planning for development until Malibu can adequately support the infrastructure it has now, citing the community’s lack of water supply. He said Malibu needs at least a three-day emergency supply of water. Jennings said the council has no legal right to pass a moratorium.
Not everyone in the audience, however, thought the idea of increased commercial development was a bad one. Don Schmitz, one of the developers of the proposed La Paz development on Civic Center Way, said the project is a good one. Schmitz asked, “My concern is what are the consequences to the city if the project doesn’t proceed?”
Hasse summed things up describing Malibu as “a city in transition.” There’s a whole new demographic who needs sports fields, a community center, and wetlands. “The answer is a balance,” he said.
Hasse said, come November, Malibu residents would be the ones to decide. He said if residents want to stop all development they are going to have to purchase the property because it’s privately owned. Hasse said voters must determine how much and what types of commercial development are acceptable to them and further decide their stance on a bond measure that will help acquire some of that land.