In other action, the council approves amendment to allow developer to build four homes near Broad Beach.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A few months after Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich declared her intention to get an ordinance passed to take on the paparazzi, she has decided to stick with the laws that are already on the books. But she left open the room for reviving proposed anti-paparazzi laws in the future. The mayor announced her new view at Monday’s City Council meeting.
“I’m not recommending the city draft any ordinance at this time; that we just enforce the [laws] we have,” Conley Ulich said. “However, if, God forbid, some child gets hurt because the paparazzi are chasing them when they exit the school-I’m really concerned that could happen-we have some drafts of laws that we could look to and start considering.”
Conley Ulich earlier this year had formed a committee composed of Pepperdine University law professors and School of Law Dean Kenneth Starr to come up with anti-paparazzi laws. The committee drafted some proposals, which were criticized by some people for infringing on free speech rights.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has been on record in favor of the enforcement of current driving and public disturbance laws as the best method to deal with paparazzi rather than creating specific laws against them. Los Angeles Councilman Dennis Zine has a list of those laws on his Web site in what he titles a “Citizen’s Guide.” Conley Ulich suggested a link be placed on the city’s Web site to the Citizen’s Guide and that it be placed in the city’s quarterly parks and recreation newsletter.
Council approves Malibu Bay request
Also at Monday’s meeting, the council unanimously voted to support an amendment to the city’s Local Coastal Program that would allow the Malibu Bay Co. to build four homes on a property located just east of Broad Beach. The previous rule would have allowed the company to build only two homes. The amendment had already been approved in June by the California Coastal Commission, which has the final say on LCP amendments. But since the Coastal Commission made some adjustments to the amendment first proposed by Malibu, the item was required to go back to the city. The council’s vote must now go back to the Coastal Commission for what should be the final step, prior to what could be litigation.
The Malibu Bay property in question, which is the last remaining vacant residential-zoned land in the Broad Beach area, is approximately 200 feet wide. Because the city’s LCP requires beachfront lots to be a minimum of 80 feet wide, only two homes could have been built on the site. Malibu Bay requested an LCP amendment to reduce the minimum width to 45 feet to go along with the city’s 2007 approval for a subdivision of the property into four parcels.
City Planner Stephanie Danner said the new law would affect “less than a handful” of properties in the area. She said at the Coastal Commission meeting in June that it would affect three.
Attorney John Bowman, representing the Ross family that owns property next to the Malibu Bay site, spoke against the council’s decision. Among other issues, he said the new law would lead to homes too close to a dune that is a state-declared environmentally sensitive habitat area, or ESHA.
As part of the amendment, Malibu Bay has agreed to remove nonnative vegetation and plant native flora on the dune as part of a restoration project. Also, Malibu Bay would pay for the cost of any lawsuit the amendment’s approval might trigger.
This property was part of the 2003 Malibu Bay Co. Development Agreement. That proposal, which involved several of the company’s properties throughout the city, called for the development of five homes on the site. The development agreement was approved by the City Council, but rejected by Malibu voters.