It is no secret that development in Malibu comes slowly—but after years of complaints from homeowners and developers as well as council members and planning commissioners, Malibu City Council is making moves to tighten up the years-long process.
The new regulation, discussed at the Monday, Oct. 23, Malibu City Council meeting, would have the city issue development permits with three-year deadlines. Those permits could then be extended for one or two years—maximum—at the discretion of the Malibu Planning Commission. By making the new rules a “policy change” rather than an official amendment, the city was able to keep the bounds of the rules under the control of the city, rather than allowing the California Coastal Commission the jurisdiction to make decisions on permit extensions.
According to council members, the process of construction in Malibu has extended beyond a reasonable time frame.
“We have some projects in Malibu that people are taking 20 years to build and it’s a blight on the community,” Council Member Laura Rosenthal lamented, but planning staff were quick to point out once all necessary permits are secured and the project is under construction, the cap in permitting does not apply.
“Absent extraordinary circumstances, the aggregate life of the permit shall not exceed five years,” the new policy clarifies, according to a council actions memo provided by the City of Malibu.
Council Member Jefferson “Zuma Jay” Wagner pointed out that those circumstances could be subjective.
“The extenuating circumstances can be very creative,” Wagner cautioned. “I guarantee if you give them an opening, we’ll be right back where we are a couple years from now, unless you come up with a finite amount of years to get that project done.”
Council members made it clear they did not want permits to be extended past five years.
Council voted, 5-0, in favor of the new policy.
Waterworks releases list of 12 improvement projects for next decade
Dave Rydman, an engineer and spokesperson for Waterworks District 29, the district covering most of the Malibu area, announced a finalized list of 12 priority projects to be completed in the next 10 years.
“Considering our available funding options and constraints and commitment to limiting our borrowing to the amount of money that would not require any rate increase to the district customers … We can construct 12 priority projects and plan to do that over the next 10 years,” Rydman told council Monday.
The list of projects includes: Big Rock bypass improvements; Carbon Canyon Road and Carbon Mesa Road waterline improvements; Civic Center improvements including a new tank; Coastline Drive 12-inch waterline improvements; District 29 Cross Creek crossing repair project; construction of an emergency connection with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District; Fernwood tank improvement; lower Busch tank improvement; Malibu branch feeder realignment; Owen tank improvement; PCH eight-inch waterline improvements from Zumirez Drive to Escondido Beach Road; and PCH and Topanga Beach Drive waterline improvements.
Scoping meetings are scheduled in Malibu and Topanga for residents interested in weighing in: Nov. 14 at 6:30 p.m. at Topanga Elementary and Nov. 16 at 6:30 p.m. at Malibu City Hall.
City explores new fees for new developments
Mayor Skylar Peak presented the idea of a traffic mitigation fee on Monday night, drawing unanimous consensus from council to research ways other cities go about collecting funds.
The fees are, in essence, designed to offset traffic increases created by new developments.
“In developing an ordinance establishing a traffic mitigation fee program, the city should rely on a study that evaluates new developments’ cumulative impact on traffic and identifies the appropriate proportionate cost for each area,” a staff report for the meeting stated.
City staff is now tasked with finding what types of traffic mitigation fees are imposed by nearby comparable cities, but most council members were outspoken in their opposition to the idea of imposing fees on residential developments.
“I think that if we limit it to commercial, it would be an easier sell. The bottom line is, people have enough taxes to deal with, and this is just another one,” Council Member Lou La Monte said. “I’m for the commercial part of it; I think that makes sense. They’re really generating traffic.”
Rosenthal also voiced her agreement with La Monte.
“I think we should leave both of them open and see what staff comes back with on something that’s a little more detailed,” Peak responded.
“I have to admit, I agree with Lou and Laura on this, but I also agree with Skylar,” Mullen said. “Let’s see what other cities do.”