A refection by the City Council could kill the controversial project. The Planning Commission unanimously voted no on the deal as it stands.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to The Malibu Times
The Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Development Agreement review process restarts on June 9, when the City Council begins its series of public hearings and meetings on what is one of the most controversial issues in the history of Malibu. A council approval of the agreement will mean the city’s voters get to make the final decision on the matter in the November election, while a rejection will mean the issue is dead, at least for now.
At this week’s meeting, the council was expected to adopt a schedule for the series of public hearings on the agreement. (The meeting took place Tuesday evening after The Malibu Times went to print.) The proposed schedule includes as many as eight meetings from June 9 until late July. But the council could continue meeting on the MBC item until as late as Aug. 7, at which time it must make a final decision.
If the council approves the agreement, it will still have to go before voters for a final decision because of a city code requirement that any commercial agreement involving 30 acres or more must be approved by ballot. County regulations require the city to have everything ready for the ballot no less than 88 days before the election, hence the Aug. 7 deadline.
If approved, the agreement would greatly alter the look of Malibu. Over a 20-year period the city would be introduced to about 300,000 square feet of development, including retails stores, office buildings and homes. The agreement requires numerous zoning and general plan amendments. In return for this, the MBC has offered the city an 18.87-acre piece of land on Point Dume at which it could build two ball fields and a community center.
For the past several months, the Planning Commission oversaw proceedings on the agreement. The period was marked by canceled public hearings due to incomplete or late-arriving staff reports, angry residents charging that they were not getting the answers to all their questions on the agreement’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a commission that complained the process was going too fast.
Also, the hearings were a battleground for the opposing sides on the issue, with people from each one arguing passionately to defend their respective positions. At times the situation got out of hand, such as one incident in which Commission Chair Richard Carrigan had to slam his gavel to interrupt an over-the-top rant by leading agreement opponent Ozzie Silna. But the agreement’s proponents have also shown their passion at the hearings, calling the opposition cynics who would prefer to demonize the MBC and be suspicious about its plans, rather than accept an opportunity for a better Malibu.
In the end, the commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council reject the agreement. The members’ main argument was that it was unfair, giving too much to MBC with the city receiving little in return. The commission did not make a recommendation on the EIR, but several members said they felt it was incomplete and did not fully address significant issues such as traffic. Although the commission’s decision was only a recommendation, due to the city’s municipal code, the MBC was required to file an appeal for the agreement to move on to the City Council. The MBC did so two days after the commission affirmed its decision on May 19.
The following day, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) made its final recommendations to the City Council. But the ERB’s recommendations greatly differed from the Planning Commission’s, as it did not have to decide if the agreement was a good deal for Malibu. The ERB just had to examine the environmental issues associated with the plan such as those involving water and biology. Interim Planning Manager Ed Knight said the ERB’s recommendations would most likely be put together into a report that will be issued to the council at its second MBC agreement meeting.
Also at the ERB meeting, Malibu EIR management consultant Susan Tebo from Impact Sciences said the city will be responding to all questions and comments from the public that were sent after last fall’s review period. The city has already responded to more than 1,000 comments and questions, with all of them appearing on the city’s Web site. Although state law does not require the city to address anything coming in after the review period, City Manager Katie Lichtig has recommended the city respond to everything up until the Planning Commission’s May 7 recommendation.