Despite an end-of-the-year deadline, the Planning Commission, at Monday night’s meeting, once again postponed the approval of the city’s Housing Element Document because it is incomplete.
The document is a statement of the city’s current and future housing needs, expected to meet all income levels in the area.
At a previous meeting, it was determined that the city did not meet the required moderate-to lower-income housing criteria, which would provide up to six affordable homes out of 14 to be built to accommodate population housing growth.
The city is considering using second units to fulfill this requirement; however, the current legal controversy over code enforcement regarding these units poses a problem.
Commissioner Andrew Fox felt consultants for Parsons, an infrastructure and technology group from Sacramento that has been working on the plan with the city, took it for granted the commission would just rubber stamp the document. The document was found to be incomplete at previous meetings, and was still error-ridden on Monday. But the goals and objectives of the housing document are worthy of the attention of the commission, he said.
“Blame it on Sacramento,” said the commission and staff in unison, as Planning Director Barry Hogan apologetically stated this is a very unusual process that collapsed into a race for the Dec. 31 deadline, promising this is not a sign of things to come from the planning department.
In other matters, despite the many efforts made by an architect to minimize impacts on the primary viewshed of neighboring residents on Latigo Bay View Drive, the commission denied the appeal of the property owner who wants a variance to build a two-story home on a lot that sits in front of others.
“There is no God-given right to build two-story houses in Malibu,” said Ed Lipnick, Planning Commission chair.
The revisions, which reduced the height of the home from 28 feet to under 22 feet, were sufficient to appease one of the neighbors who came to speak on behalf of the developer. But another couple still opposed the project because they would lose their view of the mountains.
The commission concurred that this project would be an “in-your-face” provocation for those particular residents, who live immediately behind the parcel targeted for development.
Despite the revisions, the projected home would still block the view to the Santa Monica Mountains for residents Leon and Marian Orr. And, since there is no distinction in the city’s zoning code between ocean and mountain views, the commission voted 4 to 1 against the revised project.
Though the appellant said the commission was unjustifiably denying his project based on a mountain-view ordinance that is not clearly defined, the commission stood firm, believing that people in Malibu are entitled to see the mountains and the ocean.
“This is the only lot in front of anyone else in this development,” said Leon Orr.
Commissioner Richard Carrigan agreed. “The single most important thing in Malibu is our views of the ocean,” he said.
This project is inconsistent with Malibu’s land-use policies, which fiercely protect views, continued Carrigan .
The developer has asked for a special variance, which is not justified in the eyes of the commission since variances can only be granted for special circumstances where a home cannot be built without it.
The only commission member who did not vote against the revised project is Ted Vaill, who thought architect John Kilbane, who designed the revised plans, had made every effort to minimize the impact on neighbors.
Additionally, the commission had many items on its agenda, but only reviewed one because proper notice was not given to the public for the other projects. The agenda’s items were continued to the commission’s next meeting on Dec. 18.