Council Denies MRCA Development Permit Extension

In a unanimous vote Monday, Malibu City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of a permit that would have given the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority extra time to build a house on a newly purchased lot in Sycamore Park.

Back in October of last year, the MRCA bought the residential parcel on Via Escondido in the private Sycamore Park neighborhood. At the time, the authority had six months upon which to act on a coastal development permit to build a single-family residence and guest house.

The MRCA did not meet the deadline, and in June the Planning Commission denied a request to give the authority more time.

At the time, MRCA attorney Oscar Victoria said the denial would “render the publically purchased property useless.”

In its appeal, the MRCA listed five items it claimed as grounds for an extension: 

1. A security guard blocked MRCA access to the property.

2. Planning commissioners incorrectly asserted the MRCA was in “litigation regarding public access” with the neighborhood’s road maintenance association.

3. The Planning Commission’s assertion that placement of a picnic table and trash can changes the land use  is unreasonable.

4. The city refuses to address issues pertaining to the MRCA’s property rights.

5. The City of Malibu “exhibits a clear and distinct bias against the MRCA.”

On all counts, city staff published rebuttals. Regarding the security guard, staff said MRCA employees accessed the property 40 times since the start of the year, according to the guard’s logbook, including 10 times in the month of February. 

Regarding item No. 2, staff replied that the placements of signs, as well as trash cans and a picnic table “indicate an intent for the MRCA to use the property as a park,” regardless of whether litigation was for public access. 

As to the third item, staff cited the MRCA’s mission listed on its website, stating, “The placement of a trash can, picnic table and signs designating the location as a park and/or trail is important because it shows MRCA’s intended park and trail use of the property instead of as a single-family home as approved in the CDP at issue. The construction of the proposed residential development would conflict with MRCA’s core mission and its stated basis for acquiring the grant to purchase the property.” 

In response to item No. 4, staff wrote that the dispute was a “civil matter” between the MRCA and its neighbors. “The road at issue is not a public road,” the city staff wrote, later adding, “Even if there were access issues … they did not prevent MRCA from contacting the case planner, completing structural plans, or taking other steps to demonstrate diligence in pursuing the approved project.”

Finally, in response to the allegation of bias against the authority, staff said essentially that the charge was unfounded. “MRCA has not provided substantial evidence that would show a lack of a fair or impartial hearing,” the staff report reads.

After a public hearing that lasted about an hour Monday evening, city council voted unanimously, 5-0, to uphold staff’s suggestion denying the MRCA’s appeal.