A project to build five luxury homes on a lot neighboring Malibu Bluffs Park, known as the Crummer Site Subdivision, is up for review after a draft environmental impact report (EIR) was released April 3 that found the housing development would have minimal negative effects on the environment.
The biggest impact, according to the report, would be increased traffic congestion at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu Canyon Road should ballfields be constructed on a 1.74-acre parcel the owners of the Crummer site have agreed to donate to the city for active recreation uses.
The 24-acre project is divided into seven parcels. Five lots are reserved for the five blufftop homes, while one parcel is reserved for development of a private road and gatehouse, open space for residents and an onsite wastewater treatment center.
The City of Malibu stands to receive the seventh 1.74- acre parcel, an addition that would expand the city’s current 10-acre Bluffs Park further east. Gold and his development partners have also promised the city $1 million for development of the parcel.
After the city expressed interest in using the parcel for more baseball fields or construction of a permanent skate park, EIR consultant Planning Center DC&E assessed those uses in the Crummer EIR.
“The proposed project with baseball field option would result in a substantial increase in traffic in Opening Year 2017 and Future Year 2030 if the intersection of PCH and Malibu Canyon Road/ Winter Mesa Road, which is operated and maintained by Caltrans, is not improved,” according to the draft EIR.
To remedy possible congestion, the draft proposes restriping Malibu Canyon Road’s middle lane, which currently has thru and left-turn arrows, to include a rightturn arrow as well.
Those traffic measures, however, are contingent on the city’s plans for the donated land.
“If the city builds a skatepark, the traffic mitigation doesn’t have to be done,” said the project’s developer Robert Gold. “But if baseball or multipurpose fields go in, [traffic mitigation measures] do have to be done.”
Land zoning remains to be corrected; Gold willing to pay $2 million mitigation fee
While Gold said he was relieved the draft EIR came back “clean” minus a possible traffic mitigation issue, a zoning issue between the City of Malibu and the powerful California Coastal Commission concerning the 24-acre, seven-parcel project remains to be hashed out among the three parties, and could cost the owners of the property $2 million.
In 2010, the Malibu City Council approved the project after Gold and his business partner Roger Ackerman agreed to donate 1.74 acres to the city.
When the project reached the Coastal Commission, Gold and Ackerman then offered to pay a $2 million mitigation fee to make up for the loss of what the Coastal Commission deemed as commercial visitor-serving uses on the Crummer site. With the mitigation fee, the commission would agree to a zoning change on the land from commercial visitor-serving to planned development zoning.
While the Coastal Commission approved this request on a 10-2 vote, it added two other items into the decision after the public comment period had passed: an amendment to designate the land as a passive recreation zone, meaning no ball fields; and another barring a gated entry for the proposed housing development.
When the Coastal amendments came back to the City Council in May 2010 for approval, the city disagreed with LCP amendments tacked on by Coastal at the last minute, especially after Malibu envisioned building ball fields for active use on its 1.74- acre share of the site.
The council declined to adopt the amendments, so the LCP amendment expired after six months. City officials further argued that Coastal used “outdated” policies from the LCP to designate the Crummer site as commercial visitor-serving.
“We continue to believe the property is zoned as planned development,” Parker-Bozylinski said this week.
Either way, the project will require amending the LCP to clarify the site’s zoning.
Coastal Commission staffers did not return multiple calls or emails for comment on the project’s fate at a future Coastal hearing.
City of Malibu Planner Stefanie Edmondson said since the Crummer project is being presented as a planned development project before the Coastal Commission, a mitigation fee should not be necessary.
“It doesn’t say anywhere you have to submit mitigation as part of a planned development project,” she said. “I guess that’s going to be the discussion with the applicant if they’re taking that position.“
Still, three years later, Gold and Ackerman remain willing to pay the $2 million mitigation fee.
“Our goal is to work with coastal and staff and commissioners to come up with an amount that makes sense and allows the project to move forward, which we believe should not be more than $2 million,” Gold said.