One side has called it a benefit to the public, the other, a
sellout.
By Paul Sisolak / Special to The Malibu Times
Reaction has been mixed over the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s decision last week to not oppose a controversial proposal most closely associated with U2 musician David Evans, also known as The Edge, to build five homes north of Sweetwater Canyon Road.
Last week’s surprise split vote from SMCC board members didn’t come without a hefty trade-off that officials say was in the works for more than a year. Owners of the homes to be built agreed to $1 million in compensatory monies, coastal slope easements and guaranteed open space preservation.
The project, after several delays, is scheduled to be heard by the California Coastal Commission in July.
Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, said that while he was happy to learn of the conservancy agreement, it wouldn’t impact the commission’s decision to approve or deny the project when it goes before the commission.
“The fact they have struck a deal with the conservancy on public benefits is nice, but it doesn’t change the law we have to apply to public development,” Douglas said. “That’s between them and it really has nothing to do with the impacts of the project we have to analyze under the coastal act.”
The SMMC’s 3-2 vote on April 25 to remain neutral on the matter and approve the carefully thought out public benefits program negates a lengthy November 2009 letter from the conservancy opposing the construction. It also goes against what the state agency stands for, one canyon resident said.
Jim Smith said he believes the conservancy has gone back on its word and calls it a “lopsided trade off.”
“I think in those dealing with the conservancy, for them to define their position so clearly, then after Edge offers them more money, for them to be neutral is immoral,” he said. “The fact that they have sold out for their silver coins on this thing is going to be a reflection on the integrity of the conservancy.”
In detail, the conservancy’s arrangement with developers includes: a permanent conservation easement of around 97 acres of the proposed development area; deed restrictions around the proposed homes-which may range in size from 7,220 square feet, to Evans’ own 12,785-square-foot home-trail easements for public use of the Coastal Slope Trail on three lots spread across Carbon Mesa; a trail dedication on one portion of the project area; $750,000 for the acquisition of further easements; and an additional $250,000 for trail design work.
Smith, along with another opponent to the project who could not be reached, believes the program doesn’t adequately mitigate concerns that the conservancy board brought to light in 2009. In the conservancy’s original letter, it was stated that the Sweetwater Mesa project was unfeasible because construction may disrupt natural resources, it would be aesthetically unpleasing and several coastal codes would be violated.
“Very few people will be hiking on that trail, but everybody will see what will happen to that side of the mountain,” Smith said.
Joe Edmiston, SMMC executive director, has personally come under fire for the deal. “Shame on you, Mr. Edmiston. I believed you to be an authentic champion of the environment, but apparently I was mistaken,” Pamela Campbell, in a letter to the editor, wrote. “Now you have joined the pathetic class of people who can be bought by land developers.”
A spokeswoman for the five home builders, four of whom remain unnamed, said that all parties involved were happy with the outcome of the complex negotiations. Fiona Hutton, president of Fiona Hutton & Associates, Inc., which represents the home builders, noted that the public benefits program was a sound proposal because it allows development on the five lots legally while fulfilling the conservancy’s mission. “The five property owners wanted to work through that letter and find a way to address some of the concerns [the SMMC] raised,” she said. “They listened to the community and stakeholders and when they received that comment letter from the conservancy, made sure to sit down … they explored options for a year and came up with this package that links up the coastal trails, guarantees open space and sets aside private properties.”
In a statement released last week, the SMMC justified its decision, stating, “The Conservancy entered into this agreement in order to maximize the benefit for the public if the project is approved by the California Coastal Commission and other approving governmental bodies.”
Portions of the project, set to include a 1,600-foot access road, also need to be green lit by officials from Los Angeles County and the City of Malibu. Mayor John Sibert said that while the city has a vested interest in carving out the access path, he hasn’t instructed city staff to look any further into the project because it hasn’t yet reached the final stages.
“What affects us is the road along Malibu Creek. It’s a major project and a major amount of excavation to build a road along a narrow path,” Sibert said this week. “The important thing will be, will those houses be approved in those sizes, in those places? Then we’ll rehear the coastal development permit for the road. But it’d be wrong of me to make a judgment ahead of time when we haven’t heard it yet.”