The lack of comments at Monday night’s meeting of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy indicated the organization was as wary of the Local Coastal Plan as the City of Malibu is.
Discussion was brief. Noting that the densification of housing along the hillside is “denser than the 1986 County Plan,” Executive Director Joe Edmiston acknowledged, “There are issues here that we need to resolve, even among members of the board. We need to establish a policy that all of us can support.”
The Local Coastal, or Land Use Plan, was prepared by the California Coastal Commission after the city’s incorporation. Although the Coastal Commission’s role has been to preserve coastal resources and public access to the shore, residents have stated that the Coastal Commission document would increase development and have criticized the lack of participation permitted city officials. Speakers again questioned the role of preservation in the plan.
“It actually increases concentrations-that’s my concern-the deterioration in the level of protection,” said member David Brown.
The matter was tabled and will be addressed at the SMMC’s December meeting.
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy put the nix on a proposed private road running off Sweetwater Mesa Road-at least temporarily.
The SMMC voted unanimously to recommend that the City of Malibu not accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Report and require the larger document. A MND states that a project will have no notable impacts and therefore, a more comprehensive (and more expensive) Environmental Impact Report is unnecessary.
The 20-foot wide, 1,600-foot-long road would enable the development of five future single-family homes on lots of 5 acres each, but would pass through part of a 24-acre area, which have been proposed as open space “pursuant to the California Coastal Commission for development on property owned by Sheldon Gordon.” The recipient may be the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.
Although they found the MND skimpy in a number of areas, the biggest problem lies in what the staff report calls “the piecemeal presentation” without a thorough description of the development itself. Although the northern extension of the road and the five homesites are situated within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, the MND only analyzes the environmental impacts of the road where it passes through the City of Malibu.
The report also stated that “it is unsound public policy to consider approval of a road without knowledge of the project elements associated with the houses that the road would service, and without consideration of those impacts.”
“At the very least, the project description should include the locations of the proposed road through the City of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles, five homes, grading, fuel modification, utilities, and other project elements that would result in environmental impacts,” in addition to plant communities, wildlife movement and watershed.
Member David Brown questioned whether the 20-foot road is not a foot in the door for a wider road-and questioned the road’s ability to handle emergency vehicles.
“All of this taps into a private road and comes down to Serra Road, which is also a private road,” he said, “and none of which are capable of being a fire road. I wonder if we’re looking at a 20-foot road, or if somebody is going to blow the whistle somewhere down the road and say we need a much wider road.”
In addition, he said, the Coastal Slope Trail runs through the development site. “It looks like Mr. Sweeney is trying to get us to buy his property,” Brown said.
Both staff and conservancy members questioned the potential for this road to open up the area to further development. The report states that although the “project is probably growth-inducing in this regard,” no analysis had been provided of these “probable growth-inducing impacts.” There is no indication that development would be limited to five homes and that no additional roads would be built on the property.
“While we support the idea of limiting the development, it is unclear how this would in fact be enforced,” the report states, or, if limits were imposed, how these could be enforced in the future. Member David Allgood said it was “absolutely essential” to ask for the more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report, as did the rest of the members, who voted unanimously to disapprove the MND.