Malibu City Council on Monday, Aug. 24, voted unanimously, 4-0, to restrict nighttime parking on two stretches of Pacific Coast Highway: along the shore at Corral and Zuma beaches.
New restrictions—set to go into place next month—will enact a staggered parking ban designed to make it so vehicles are not “able to stay in one place for excessive periods of time, blocking ocean views, taking up numerous parking spaces and … camping,” and are modeled after a similar staggered restriction put in place earlier this year at Las Tunas Beach and in the Malibu Pier area.
These restrictions will block parking on the landward (north) side of PCH at Corral Beach from midnight to 2 a.m. and on the seaward (south) side of PCH at Corral Beach from 2 to 4 a.m. At Zuma Beach, where there is already a ban on parking along the north (landward) side of the beach, parking would be prohibited on the seaward side in two sections.
Parking on the stretch of highway from the Zuma Beach parking entrance to the east property boundary of 30245 PCH (roughly midway between Morningview Drive and Guernsey Drive) would be blocked from midnight to 2 a.m. From 2 to 4 a.m., the remainder of the beach (from the west property boundary of 30245 PCH to the east edge of Trancas Creek Bridge) would see parking banned.
“This issue’s a disaster,” Mayor Mikke Pierson said, echoing the feelings of many public speakers and other council members who expressed frustration over RVs and other vehicles parking along PCH for days and weeks at a time. According to council members and members of the public who spoke, semi-permanent vehicles parked along the highway block the public from accessing Malibu’s beaches.
“We are doing what we think we can do, and it’s not enough,” Pierson added.
Council Member Rick Mullen did not attend Monday’s virtual Zoom meeting.
Malibu Park home rebuild approved, reversing planning commission denial
A debate continues to rage over the role “neighborhood character” should play in Woolsey Fire rebuilds, with city council on Monday voting unanimously, 4-0, to approve one family’s plans, despite the home’s height coming in above the city’s normal restriction of 18 feet.
The council approval came after the Malibu Planning Commission voted, 3-2, to deny a building permit at a hearing in April 2020. Commission Vice Chair John Mazza and Commissioners Steve Uhring and Chris Marx voted to deny the building permit, while Chair Jeffrey Jennings and Commissioner David Weil voted in support of the project.
An assemblage of neighbors from the fire–ravaged neighborhood voiced support on Monday for the family seeking to build a 6,182-square-foot home (with 899-square-foot second unit) on land that burned in the 2018 fire. According to the council’s resolution, the home, even at nearly 24 feet in height, constitutes a “residential development that is consistent with characteristics of neighboring properties.”
“It’s apparent that there’s three members of the planning commission that appear to be pursuing some sort of personal vision as opposed to the actual compliance with the code, so they simply ignore math,” a frustrated Mark Baute, representing the family seeking to rebuild, said during the hearing.
According to neighbor Dana Graulich, who also lost her home in the fire, going through the process of approval (and having her own plans denied by the planning commission) caused “so much stress and anguish.”
Graulich added that the planning commission’s arguments were “just another excuse to shoot down a member of our community trying to rebuild and heal after this horrible experience.”
Council Member Karen Farrer emphasized that the city should support residents seeking to rebuild.
“We voted deliberately and specifically to try to support fire rebuilds, support our community members, help them rebuild, help them with streamlining, we hired additional planners, help them by waiving permit fees … and then to see this happening is—it’s painful to watch. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be the subject of this,” Farrer said.
Council Member Jefferson “Zuma Jay” Wagner, whose planning commission appointee was among those who voted against the project, spoke in defense of commissioners, despite voting in support of the project.
“I have no problem with the project,” Wagner said, later adding, “The only issue I’m going to mention right now is that a number of the speakers—not all of them, but a couple of them—picked on the planning commission.”
Wagner defended the commissioners, saying that they put in the hard work of making these decisions.
“I would just say to the speakers that spoke about the planning commission, they do the homework for us,” Wagner said. “We’re supposed to rely on them. If you feel that they’ve done something in error, you mention it politely in error, but don’t pick on them. They’re our appointees.”