Regular city meeting attendee John Mazza denounces the approval of a coastal permit for a home on PCH; and criticizes another project approval located in the mountains.
By Jonathan Friedman/Assistant Editor
Monday’s Planning Commission meeting became a heated affair when Commission Vice Chair Les Moss criticized arguments made by community activist John Mazza regarding an application for a coastal development permit to build a one-story home at 26900 Pacific Coast Highway.
Moss said it was not necessary to accept Mazza’s words against the opinion of a geologist. Mazza then whispered to reporters that Moss was not competent to make that decision. Following the meeting, Moss told Mazza that he hoped his statement did not create any hard feelings. Mazza responded that Moss had made a fool of himself.
During the meeting, Mazza said that the property in question was located on a coastal bluff and therefore part of an environmentally sensitive habitat area, which would require a larger setback. City Planner Stefanie Edmondson said the city biologist determined that the property was not in an ESHA and the city geologist found the property was not on a coastal bluff. While several commissioners asked Edmondson about the issues raised by Mazza, Moss disregarded Mazza’s comments.
“The fact that Mr. Mazza makes his statements about his theories about some of the technical aspects of this project doesn’t mean they’re right,” he said. “Just saying it, does not make it correct. You’re [Mazza] flat out wrong on the issue.”
Mazza said after the meeting that the biologist, rather than the geologist, should have made the decision on whether the property was on a coastal bluff, so that he would have the full information to decide whether the site was an ESHA. Mazza also challenged another item on the commission’s agenda, a coastal development application for a porch and second floor addition to a home on Debutts Terrace. It had already received administrative approval from the planning manager. Administrative coastal development permits are granted to projects that are considered less significant and do not require further approval by the Planning Commission. They are presented to the commission as informational items. But if a majority of the commission decides any of the projects need further review, they are then placed on a future agenda for commission consideration. Also, a member of the public can appeal a project to be reviewed by the commission.
Mazza said the project should not be limited to an administrative approval because the home is on a ridgeline and the project does not strictly follow the ridgeline standards of the Malibu Local Coastal Program’s Local Implementation Plan. This means the applicant must seek a variance, which cannot be granted through the administrative approval process.
Planning Manager Mike Teruya did not challenge Mazza’s interpretation of the rules. But he said the application was for “a very small” project and would not affect the surrounding area. Commissioner Pete Anthony was the only member of the planning panel to agree with Mazza, so the commission did not place the item on a future agenda for further review.
Following the meeting, Mazza said, “They [the city] have decided to shine the rules.” He said he would appeal the project.