Most present at last Tuesday’s meeting are against the deal where the Malibu Bay Company would donate land and money to build ball fields and a community center. Commissioners express concern over rushing through the deal. City manager says pace will not slow.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to The Malibu Times
Planning Commission Chair Richard Carrigan slammed his gavel on the table to bring back order to a special planning meeting last week, as speaker Ozzie Silna screamed passionately and slammed his hand on the podium in outrage that anyone would support the Malibu Bay Company’s (MBC) donation as part of the proposed development agreement with the city.
Silna’s outrage was directed toward the deal where MBC has offered to give the city an 18.87 acre piece of land on Point Dume to build two sports fields and a community center, with the possibility of adding a dog park. The company would also give the city $5 million for the development of the projects. MBC spokesperson David Reznick said that land was the best of the company’s 12 Malibu properties to donate to the city for several reasons. One of them, he said, is because Point Dume is located in the heart of the city, and many young children live in the area. Another reason is because it contains more than 10 acres of flat land, not easy to come by in Malibu, and could therefore be better suited for playing fields.
But Silna said a better area to build would be at the Trancas Canyon location (north of PCH and west of Trancas Canyon Road), where he says six to eight playing fields could be built.
“It boggles my mind why there are people that could possibly support this, when there are so many better options that would give us so many more ball fields,” he yelled.
Most of the people who attended the meeting were against MBC’s offer, and suspected the company of having its own interests in mind, and not the city’s. This attitude bothered longtime resident and Public Safety Commissioner Marlene Matlow.
“When the developer is willing to donate $5 million for the development of a community center that will benefit the entire City of Malibu and it is looked at with suspicion, I don’t really get it,” she said.
But Matlow said she did have a problem with some of the traffic concerns raised by the proposal. As it stands now, people exiting the property, which is between Portshead Heathercliff roads, would have to make a left-hand turn onto Pacific Coast Highway without a traffic light. And getting a light is not a guarantee, because there is one on a nearby intersection. This concern was shared by nearly everybody at the meeting.
Many letters to the editor have been sent in regarding the proposal (see page A4). Jack Evans, president of the Malibu Little League, believes that those opposed to the deal are NIMBYs (not in my backyard).
” … We need more space. We need more community parks. We need a community center,” Evans wrote. Malibu Bay Company offering fields, a center and “the money to build them… If I were Malibu Bay Co., I would either build out every parcel to the max, or sell them to the highest bidders …”
Another major complaint about the agreement is the powers given to MBC with regard to how the donated land is used. The company would be able to veto any plans made by the city, including whom it hires as an architect and what it ends up building.
“We felt it (is) very important, since we had specific intents to fill unmet needs in the community, that we have a voice in making sure those needs are met,” Reznick said.
Malibu Township Council member Efrom Fader said this policy concerned him. He suggested if MBC is so concerned about what gets built on the site, then it should do it itself. The company could then donate the finished product to the city. Commissioner Robert Adler said he did not like the veto inclusion either, saying the city doesn’t need a parent looking over its shoulder.
Also at the meeting, the commissioners stressed their concern over the speed with which the development agreement process was moving. The commission has been meeting almost weekly as it races toward a May 5 deadline to be ready with a recommendation for the City Council, while also dealing with regular planning items. This has meant added stress for everybody involved, and often staff reports have been made available to the public only days before the meetings, not giving enough time for review. The latest meeting had to be canceled, because the Planning Department could not finish the report in time. The city’s consultant on the agreement has also said he was not positive if he could provide a quality report with the current time constraints.
“The Planning Commission took our orders from the City Council,” Carrigan said. “And we said we’ll go with that route until we find that we can no longer operate with that schedule. In my opinion, we have reached that point.”
All the commissioners agreed the process must slow down. But in a late Tuesday interview, City Manager Katie Lichtig said there was no intention of doing that. She said she and City Attorney Christi Hogin had spoken to the commissioners and there was a consensus that they should continue on the same path.