The Planning Commission approves a reduced project and a home on a lot that may have been heightened due to illegal dirt dumping, despite citizen’s concerns.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
For the second consecutive meeting, members of the Planning Commission made it clear they were going to accept expert advice over that of ordinary citizens.
The commission on Monday approved a coastal development permit application for a 3,611-square-foot home with a 3,611-square-foot basement on Birdview Avenue despite some public opposition on environmental issues. Also, the commission approved a coastal development permit for the construction of a 5,400-square-foot home on Galahad Drive and amended a previously approved coastal permit for a home on Malibu Road to satisfy a concern by the California Coastal Commission.
The application for the Birdview home had gone before the Planning Commission last month, but the commissioners requested the project be redesigned because it was too large. The new proposal reduced the size of the home and the basement by 410 square feet each. Also, the bluff setback was increased. Three of the commissioners praised the redesign, including Chair Les Moss, who said it was a reasonable house.
Karen and Joe Chernof, who live near the proposed site, said the new home would block their view of the bluffs and said the site was not developable because of environmental issues. They suggested that the current home on the site be remodeled, rather than be torn down to make room for the new home. Architect Robbin Hayne said the high costs and what would be necessary to remodel the current home would make it an illogical project. Former City Council candidate John Mazza also raised some geological concerns, but did not have professional proof to back himself up.
“I’m not going to accept a layman’s opinion [over an expert’s],” Commissioner Pete Anthony said. “I’m not going to do that. If we did do that, every time [we] got scared about something, we would consider ourselves now to be the expert. We would be in a chaotic situation.”
The final vote on the project was 3-1 (Commissioner John Sibert recused himself), with Commission Regan Schaar dissenting. Schaar said it felt like every option had not been explored to improve the project. After the meeting, Joe Chernof said he planned to appeal the decision to the Coastal Commission.
Also at the meeting, the commission voted 5-0 to approve a coastal permit application for a home on Galahad Drive despite the objection of a neighbor who said the project was being built on several feet of illegally dumped dirt and was making the structure higher than it should be, and therefore blocking her view. Margaret Herron said she eyewitnesses saw trucks dumping dirt in 1979 on the project site.
“I don’t think it’s fair because it [the dirt] was just dumped there … I don’t feel that two wrongs make a right,” Herron said. “If the soil had not been dumped, there would not be any issues.”
Associate Planner Arnica Brooks-McClain wrote in her staff report that there had been allegations of the illegal dumping. She wrote, according to the geology and soils report submitted by the applicant, the dirt was about two to 15 feet above the natural elevation of the land.
But a Coastal Commission document from 1998, which was included in the staff report, recognized the height of the site at the level it is with the extra dirt, and the city chose to accept the Coastal Commission’s decision. The Coastal Commission made that determination when it approved a subdivision for the land. The proposed project site is one of the lots for that subdivision.
After the meeting, Herron said she would not appeal the commission’s decision because she did not think an appeal would succeed.
Lastly, the commission approved an amendment to a coastal permit it granted last month for the construction of a two-story, 4,967-square-foot home on Malibu Road to satisfy Coastal Commission concerns. The Coastal Commission had appealed the August Planning Commission approval because it wanted a condition that required the applicant to remove a rock since a bulkhead would be constructed in that area. Also, the city’s original approval had required the applicant to give up a lateral access easement. The Coastal Commission wanted to be the body that would approve the applicant’s offer for the exact easement, rather than the city, as the city had originally approved.