At last week’s Malibu Planning Commission meeting, officials from the county Public Works Department claimed planning officials had ignored information they had submitted to the city regarding its rejection of the La Paz development proposal last month.
Following a nearly six-hour public hearing last month, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council reject a 132,000-square-foot commercial project on the La Paz property in the Civic Center area and support a 99,000 square-foot alternative. But the commission did not have an official resolution on which to vote and asked the city staff to come back with one at a later meeting. The resolution was presented to the commission Feb. 19, but prior to the commission’s vote, an attorney representing a couple living next to the project and county public works officials asked for a new public hearing on the item because they wanted to submit new information.
The attorney for the residents said he wanted a new hearing because his clients did not speak at last month’s session and had not been contacted in person by the city. The public works officials said a water tank needed to be built because the only water supply planned for the project’s structures came from a fragile 30-inch water main that supplies most of the city.
“We don’t want to see this new project go up in flames, especially when we know it’s a realistic possibility the main will break,” said county Public Works attorney Michael Moore, who said the main has broken 12 times in the past 10 years.
Public Works officials said this information had been included in the original draft of the project’s environmental impact report, but was removed from the version presented to the Planning Commission last month. They also said they submitted a letter to the city about this, and it was ignored.
Tamar Stein, an attorney for the Chicago-based owners of the project, said she found it odd the county officials had not come to last month’s hearing or the one in December.
“They could have been here just like everyone else at any of the last two meetings,” Stein said. “And why they would choose at this late hour and ask you to re-notice your hearing instead of sending the matter on to the City Council is in my mind subject to some concern of what they’re really trying to achieve.”
Stein also said her clients and the county are working on solving the situation, suggesting a compromise was imminent.
Commission Chair Regan Schaar said, in light of the new comments, she wanted to call for a new hearing. She said she was especially bothered the commission had not heard from the Phillips family.
“I’m put in this seat to make sure I’m addressing everybody involved in this project,” Schaar said. “And I feel like we’ve neglected a neighbor.”
Deputy City Attorney Gregg Kovacevich told Schaar it was inappropriate for her to discuss the issue at length because the only item on the agenda was whether the resolution before the commission was consistent with how the commission voted last month. He said if the commission wanted a new public hearing, it could reject the resolution, but he didn’t recommend doing that.
“There’s no reason for anyone on this commission to feel they’ve been inattentive to anyone’s needs,” Kovacevich said. “You held a hearing.”
When Schaar said the Phillips did not know they could have gone to the hearing last month, Kovacevich said, “We can’t hold everybody’s hand, but everything will be discussed at the City Council.”
Commissioner Les Moss agreed with Kovacevich. “All that information, any new information, any corrections or refinements to the EIR, whatever concerns you’re mentioning, will all come out at a full-fledged hearing of the City Council,” Moss said.
Commissioner John Sibert, who is also a candidate for City Council, said he wished he had heard some of the information mentioned last week at the January hearing, but he supported moving the item on to the City Council. He added that the comments from the county officials came from an ongoing dispute with Don Schmitz and Associates, the planning consultant firm hired by the La Paz owners for the project.
“Clearly, there’s been a micturition competition between Schmitz and the water department, and one would hope that would get resolved,” Sibert said.
The commission voted 4-1 to approve the resolution made last month, with Schaar casting the dissenting vote. After the vote, she said, “You guys are nuts for approving this.”
Both versions of the La Paz proposal are scheduled to go before the City Council on March 24. Some council members said at Monday’s City Council meeting this troubled them because a project approval would require a second hearing to affirm it, and the next meeting would be with newly elected council members.
City Attorney Christi Hogin declined to discuss whether this was a problem because the issue was not on the council agenda. She said there were many outcomes that were possible at the March 24 hearing, and they would be discussed in depth on that date.