We can all agree that the city would benefit from a ‘vision’ of the Civic Center. And insofar as the Civic Center Guidelines enhance the aesthetics of the area by proposing linear waterways, pedestrian trails and complementary architectural styles, they are valuable. But woven within these recommendations are two proposals that would result in major commercial zoning code changes and the creation of new roads, which make it easier to build bigger buildings and create more traffic.
These wouldn’t be a concern were it not for the fact that Malibu is indeed facing a gigantic amount of legally allowable new commercial space in the Civic Center and anything we do to expand legal levels of build-out will only intensify the traffic and pollution problems that invariably occur as the result of high-density development. For this reason your editorial linking opposition to the Guidelines with a ‘no-growth’ stance is somewhat inaccurate.
While reasonable people favor allowing landowners to build up to the 600,000+ square feet that they are entitled by the zoning code, your average resident would not like to see us change the code to make it easier for them to achieve over 400,000 more square feet as specified under the General Plan. It’s an unfortunate historical mistake that that the General Plan allows 67% more square footage than the zoning code, and a consequence of the large amount of land that LA County originally zoned as commercial. But General Plan levels are not a legal entitlement unless discretionary variances are given. If our goal is to limit development legally, the best way to do this is to strictly apply the current restrictions of the current code.
This is where the Guidelines as public policy need a few revisions. They propose increasing commercial building heights from 28 to 30 feet and eliminating the height restriction all together for designs with a ‘focal point.’ This is a misty standard, which is totally unnecessary and will inevitably result in bigger, taller buildings, with more view blockage and urban scaling.
The other loophole, which is an even more drastic departure from current law, is a modification to the open space requirement. Presently 65 percent of commercial lot areas are required to be open space and landscaping. As written, the Guidelines reduce this requirement to 40 percent by allowing open space and landscaping to be cumulative and not exclusive of each other. This may sound inconsequential but it represents almost a 40 percent reduction in non-buildable area, which can be used to meet parking requirements and expand building sizes dramatically.
The third proposal which would increase traffic is the addition of two roads through several parcels behind the town hall which were originally subdivided as agricultural land, are currently almost landlocked and have little commercial viability. By increasing thru-traffic, the new roads guarantee that higher intensity commercial uses will be developed on these sites because they will be gifted new commercial frontage.
The City Council should be commended for recognizing that major infrastructure changes in the Civic Center area should not be made in a cavalier fashion and for postponing adoption of the Guidelines until they are evaluated further. Since I’m concerned that the level of traffic we currently experience on beach Sundays will become the daily norm in Malibu because of the volume of new development, I hope they continue to demonstrate a cautious approach to the Civic Center issue.
Anne Hoffman