Planning commissioners say it will eliminate problems, but opponents say it will allow violations to go unchecked.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to Malibu Times
The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend an amendment to the city’s zoning code that would allow the granting of a building permit even if there is an existing violation on the property, as long as it is not associated with the permit. Some say this amendment would hurt the city’s code enforcement ability, but city officials say it eliminates problems associated with the present rules.
With the current wording of the zoning code, a person cannot apply for a permit if there already is a violation on the property, regardless of whether the two are related. This creates side effects that city officials consider problematic.
“If a code violation already exists and a person wants to submit an application to cure the violation, technically by the code you can’t accept the application,” Senior Planning Consultant Thomas Gorham said.
Also, a person wanting to appeal a neighbor’s permit application could use an irrelevant violation as a reason for the challenge. In addition, the city says the current provision is unpractical because the city does not have the resources to inspect every property to determine if the applicant is in total compliance.
But resident John Mazza said the amendment would be saying the city does not care if a person’s property has code violations.
“A person with another violation could walk in and get a permit for a guest house without fixing that,” he said. “If they want something, the city should say ‘Okay, you can have it if you fix what you did wrong.'”
Interim Planning Director Ed Knight said the problems associated with the current rule outweigh the benefits, making it a poor method for code inspection. The commission agreed.
“This particular tool is a tool that can jerk back and slash the wheels of the tool,” Commissioner Deirdre Roney said. “The other tools don’t have that possibility.”
Also at the meeting, the Planning Commission voted 2-1 to allow DreamWorks Productions to film at a couple’s home on Pacific Coast Highway near Morning View Drive for three days until midnight. The city’s regulations require approval from 100 percent of the residents living in the contiguous area for filming beyond 10 p.m. Two residents refused to sign. However, film companies can appeal any denials to the Planning Commission.
Christine Bonnem, representing DreamWorks, said the disturbance to the residents would be minimal. But Mark Stohlman, representing the Mazilu family, said previous filming at the home of Steve Graham and Jan Stevens had been disturbing, including one day in which a motorcycle was used. Commission Chair Richard Carrigan cited that as a reason for his vote against the film permit.
“If this were the first or second time and they were just coming out so to speak, then it would be all different in my mind’s eyes,” he said.
But Roney and Commissioner John Sibert said they were hopeful that DreamWorks would stand by its promise for the filming not to be disruptive. They and Carrigan approved the company to be required to have a monitor to ensure this. Sibert said his vote was also influenced by the fact that the Mazilus said they were willing to allow the filming if Graham and Stevens would clear out some vegetation and trees on their property to allow for a better ocean view. This led him to believe the issue was more about views than filming. Roney agreed with him.
“We do not think it is appropriate for many reasons … the Planning Commission appeals process to solve private disputes. That is not what we are here for. We are smart enough to figure out when it’s going on.”
In addition, the commission unanimously denied an appeal by Kissel Company Incorporated to film beyond the 20-day period maximum allowed by city law. With the rule being a fixed one that cannot be adjusted, the commission called into question the point of having the ability to appeal. It recommended that Knight draft a proposal for the City Council to clarify the rule that an appeal could not be granted under any circumstances. But Eric Nichols, who was part of the effort to get the extension, said the city should look into changing its policy entirely.
“I have never seen a city send a message to the film community that if you can get everybody affected by the film shoot to support that activity, that the city is going to stand in the way and see it cannot be done.”