Firm hired by the company says the development agreement would affect Malibu, but impacts could be mitigated.
By Sylvie Belmond/Special to The Malibu Times
The Malibu Bay Company development agreement would inevitably bring more noise, increase traffic and aggravate air pollution in Malibu, said Envicom, a firm hired by the company to evaluate the commercial/residential project’s environmental impacts.
But, overall, the five consultants who attended a joint City Council and Planning Commission panel on Monday noted most of the development’s effects on the city could be mitigated.
“Development agreements are just that,” said Drew Purvis, Planning Director for the City of Malibu. “They give and take and the city has to decide if that is acceptable or not.”
The project comprises 12 properties in Malibu, spanning from the Civic Center to Trancas. It includes commercial, residential and recreational concepts and creates permanent open space on some sites.
From increased wastewater and drainage to biological concerns, the consultants detailed the projects effects on the city, noting that most are manageable.
The agreement would require a number of variances, including some for the reduction of environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) setbacks and a reduction of required open space on some of the properties owned by Malibu Bay Company (MBC), and the city would get a 19-acre property and funds to build a community center and would know what to expect development wise.
However, some public speakers at Monday’s meeting were not so sure the agreement is a good deal for the city and were particularly concerned about water disposal issues in the Civic Center area.
Several councilmembers and planning commissioners quizzed the consultants about wastewater disposal plans.
Councilmember Ken Kearsley pointed out the Malibu Colony Shopping Center water disposal system already has problems. The Winter Canyon disposal site, at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Winter Canyon Road, currently receives the sewage from the center and “daylights” regularly, emitting unpleasant odors.
To resolve the smelly problem, and following a requirement by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), MBC recently submitted plans to the city requesting a variance to build a package treatment plant on the Ioki site, east of Stuart Ranch Road, in order to treat the current wastewater before it goes to Winter Canyon. The Planning Commission is now reviewing these plans.
However, this request prompted more questions from the joint panel about the relationship between the proposed treatment plant and the new developments in the agreement.
The new developments would generate new sewage and it was not clear to the panel how and where this sewage would be treated. Panel members wanted to know if the new Ioki site treatment plant was going to handle the new Civic Center project’s discharges as well.
Purvis responded that the new developments and the currently proposed wastewater treatment plant are completely different.
“The new development will not be connected to the system being reviewed by the commission,” he said.
In a later interview, MBC representatives explained the environmental impact report (EIR) was completed before the company was mandated by the RWQCB to fix the water disposal system in Winter Canyon. They noted that MBC has a current application to build a wastewater treatment plant for the existing developments in the Civic Center and has plans to build a second plant next to the proposed plant to handle future wastewater.
They also highlighted that future wastewater will be used in landscaping and toilets, and only the remaining water will go to Winter Canyon for disposal. The water that reaches the disposal site will be tertiary-treated, meaning the wastewater has gone through three processes of cleaning, they added.
Toward the end of Monday’s discussion, City Attorney Christi Hogin assured the panel that at this stage the city is just gathering information and can’t determine the true impact of the project until it has looked at the whole picture.
Others who attended the meeting also had concerns about open space and lack of access to information. Pat Healy, who came on behalf of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth, said, “You have no obligation to give all those variances.”
She was concerned the project’s open space criteria included parking lot surfaces, and the city did not look at the possibility of using other MBC properties to build ball fields, aside from the Point Dume lot.
Others were perplexed because California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents were not readily available to the public as required by law, and they wanted to know how the development agreement works in relation to the new Local Coastal Plan mandated by the California Coastal Commission.
When concerns about traffic came to the table, the consultants indicated that traffic matters would be discussed at the next workshop, which will take place on Nov. 6.
In other matters, Councilmember Joan House announced she appointed John Sibert to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sharon Barovsky also found two representatives to appoint. She chose Norman Ollstead to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission and Less Moss to the Rent Stabilization Board.