Several architectural options were discussed at Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting in regards to the draft Civic Center design guidelines.
The commissioners also restated the guidelines to read they “are not intended to nor shall they exceed the scope of the General Plan or the IZO.”
While the commission hammered out details in the guidelines — crafted to give the proposed development plan better “architectural articulation” — it did not nail down any final decisions.
The topic was continued to a special meeting Wednesday at the HRL Auditorium. Citing the need to clarify architectural options, the commission requested that a representative of the architecture design committee attend the meeting. Traffic and circulation issues will also be among the items discussed at the meeting.
Commissioner David Fox urged the commissioners to only endorse design plans that reflect Malibu’s unique “beachside town” atmosphere and borrow inspiration from the city’s wildlife, skateboarding, surfing and whale-watching activities.
Two design concerns were tweaked and reworded:
- Height of commercial structures: The commissioners said a 28-foot-high building likely means a pitched-roof style cannot be used. Rather, it would be a “box-like” building. Therefore, a 32-foot-high building was suggested in order to have a cluster of aesthetically pleasing buildings, which could also hide equipment like air-conditioners and heating systems.
City Planning Director Barry Hogan agreed, adding that a flat roof tends to look architecturally like an afterthought.
- Second-story size: Allowing the second story to be two-thirds the size of the first story could eliminate a “box-like” structure.
Other topics the commission discussed in regards to draft guidelines include:
- Residential zone: The current plan includes the Crummer property and residential areas near Webster Elementary School. However, the commission, with the exception of Commisioner Ted Vaill, suggested excluding the Crummer property and residential-type properties from the pre-planning process.
- The need for low-income and affordable housing in Malibu, in lieu of upscale senior-citizen condos, was addressed, and then suggested for the Civic Center area only.
“We have no affordable, low-income or moderate housing in Malibu,” said Commissioner Richard Carrigan. Ed Lipnick, commission chair, agreed, saying that the workers who build the town should be able to live here, too.
- Wetlands vs. other water structures: Language in the draft Civic Center guidelines was changed from “wetlands” to a “linear park with a water feature.” This could now include a water fountain or a small, man-made pond.
- Side-yard setbacks: The commission suggested changing the side-yard setbacks from five feet to zero feet on one side only.
“It’s possible that zero setbacks could happen on one side but that would make them have to have a double setback on the other side,” said Vaill. Additionally, if two buildings are adjoining, then it may allow for more open space on the buildings’ other side.
- Wastewater treatment plants: The commission must recommend either a central wastewater treatment plant or individual facilities. After some discussion, they changed the wording in the draft guidelines in order to suggest a wastewater treatment on-site as the preferred alternative. However, if it’s off-site then it should be “environmentally superior.”
“My position was that I strongly recommend one state-of-the-art plant,” said Vaill. Commissioner Fox said he prefers treating waste on-site, but only if it’s the better option for the environment.
- Research and development: To steer away from possible problems with air pollution and avoid having a full-scale industrial manufacturing facility, the commission suggested eliminating “chemical” and “bio-technical” industries from developing at the Civic Center. The hope is that the research companies will mimic a small, general-office atmosphere.
“We don’t want to allow any uses that would properly be in an industrial site,” said Lipnick. “Obviously we don’t want anything that’s polluting or dangerous or hazardous.”
In other matters, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 allowing the Odyssey School, nestled in Las Flores Canyon, to expand from 30 to 60 students. The commission also granted a variance to raise the roof of the school building, allowing for a second story to accommodate additional classrooms that would serve older students up to eighth grade.
The school primarily serves special-needs students. It enables autistic students to merge into mainstream education curriculum.
Despite some opposition from neighbors who were concerned about increased traffic in the congested canyon, and concerns about additional future growth, the commission approved the school’s request because they thought the school provides a desirable community service.