For years, a towering bluffside near Malibu’s Civic Center has been marked with tall metal story poles topped with ragged orange flags, indications that a project is in the works to build structures neighboring Bluffs Park.
Although the project has been in the works for years, the long-awaited five-mansion bluffside project — known colloquially as the Crummer Project — was denied in its current state by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on Thursday morning.
What comes next, though, is yet to be determined.
That’s the fate that was sealed during the monthly CCC meeting that took place in Pismo Beach, with all commissioners voting first to deny the current plans and second to continue the project to be further discussed and decided on at a date later this year.
This is hardly the first time the project has been pushed back, with the Commission voting in October to postpone the hearing.
Owners of the Crummer Project seek to build five mansions averaging 11,028 square feet on a 24-acre site adjacent to Bluffs Park. Height on the homes ranges from 24 to 28 feet. Developer Robert Gold has also agreed to donate $2 million to the state, $1 million to the City of Malibu and 1.74 acres to the city for a new recreational site.
Thursday’s meeting involved more than two hours of discussion, including many public commenters who took exception to the project based on its view obstructions.
“So much of what makes Malibu Malibu is the simplicity of it, and the incredible views that you have doing something as simple as playing at Bluffs Park,” lifelong Malibu resident Kerry Madden told the Commission. “It is a charm that I would hate to see Malibu lose.”
In response to this criticism, Jack Ainsworth, Deputy Director of the CCC for Santa Barbara, Ventura and L.A. Counties, said that the only significant view obstruction comes from directly on the baseball diamond at Malibu Bluffs Park.
“We didn’t think that little leaguer’s views were that important,” Ainsworth said.
CCC Commissioner Dayna Bochco disagreed.
“I might argue with you that the views from the Bluffs Park and the baseball field are significant,” Bochco said, “The young lady that played ball there her whole life, it’s certainly significant to her.”
But Ainsworth instead focused discussion on whether or not the land should be used for something considered “visitor-serving,” or whether it should be used for the private mansion subdivision.
This inconsistency comes from the fact that, though land use and zoning maps designate it for residential use, a previous agreement showed the city agreed that if the land was not to be used for ball fields, it should become commercial, community-serving land.
Commissioner Mark Vargas was one of the most outspoken against the project, stating that of all possible uses for a plot of land originally intended to be visitor-serving, building private homes was not near the top of his list.
“There’s certainly a large range of options between low-cost visitor-serving and five mega-mansions,” Vargas said, adding, “Maybe I’m the only one who believes that up here.”
Commissioner Greg Cox was more pragmatic.
“Let’s face it, it is privately owned property, so if we want to see some of it or all of it turned into public usage, then we’ve got to buy it,” Cox said.
In the end, no decision was made. There is no word as to when the item will be agendized next.
Editor’s Note: This story previously stated Robert Gold worked for Oaktree Capital Firm. He works for an operating partner of Oaktree.