In response to “Commission Delays Approval of Bluff-Top Homes,” I think it’s important that we not lose sight of what this project is and how it benefits Malibu.
The project that was presented to the Planning Commission last Monday night called for five homes on a 24-acre site directly adjacent to Bluffs Park. It also called for a donation of sufficient land to add a baseball field or skate park and additional parking to serve the existing amenities.
The next time you spend a quiet afternoon with your family at Bluffs Park, take the time to view this vast plot of vacant land. Then imagine a boutique hotel in its place or a large-scale condo complex, both of which have been proposed for this site in the past.
Now imagine five homes. The developer has offered to reduce the height and visible bulk of the homes as well as to modify the landscape plan to make the project less apparent when viewed from all locations. In a city where low density and slow growth win the day, one would assume that Malibu would embrace a dramatically reduced plan like this. And, in fact, it has.
Our youth sports community, among many others, has voiced its support for the project as it represents an opportunity for the city to fill a major void in the lack of active park space. So, whether it’s the land donation, the $1 million to finance construction of the new park space or the improvement to the nightmare that is parking at Bluffs Park, this project will benefit residents and visitors alike.
I think somewhere between the lengthy public testimony and the sidebar about concerns that the Staff’s recommendation to preserve the option of zoning other properties’ “planned development,” we lost focus on what this project is. The plans satisfy our Planning Department as seen by its affirmative recommendation in the staff report. It clearly meets the requirements of Malibu’s strict zoning code. And lastly, the developer is giving something back to the community that we all want.
Finally, as Arnold York stated quite eloquently in his Editorial dated Jan. 8, “Many people live behind or adjacent to an empty lot and once they get used to that view, they get very upset when someone comes along and wants to build on that vacant lot because that new house is going to cut down part or all of their view. That’s the reason we have a zoning code, so it isn’t a popularity contest. I have a right to build on my lot just the way you have a right to build on your lot, just as long as I do it within the rules relating to height and bulk. Many have trouble with that concept, but zoning can’t be that whoever builds first wins and is therefore able to block everyone else from using their lot.”
To me these are ample reasons to support this project, and you should too.