After years of argument, debate and compromise, the Malibu Planning Commission finally voted Monday to approve permits for construction of five mansions on the Crummer property, a parcel of land located on Pacific Coast Highway next to Bluffs Park. The permits were approved in a 3-2 vote.
The project, which will see five single-family mansions built on the sub-divided land, has been on and off the Planning Commission agenda for years, most recently in January 2014, as developer Robert Gold and his team of architects, landscapers and geologists worked to fit their proposed homes “into the box” of regulation.
“The people have designed within the requirements that the council has passed, and that’s all they’re expected to do,” said Vice Chair David Brotman, before the issue was brought to the final vote, where it passed three votes to two.
Amongst concerns raised by commissioners and community members was the potential for obstructed ocean views, the issue that sent Gold’s group back to the drawing board after the January meeting.
To address complaints that architects and landscapers did not provide enough detail about the proposed height and scale of the individual homes, the firm this week provided architectural drawings for each mansion, including one lot with an expanded second story.
“Any development on the Crummer site, and for that matter, any undeveloped site, will change that site’s character,” said Gold. Later he added that the final development plan, “minimized adverse impacts to visual resources to the maximum extent feasible.”
The additional size sparked a debate as to the merits of taller, narrower buildings versus wider, shorter buildings, in regards to view obstructions.
“I can’t wave my magic wand and make them all one story,” said Chair Mikke Pierson, adding, “I don’t think that adds mass, I think it lowers visual mass overall.”
Pierson made a failed motion to cap one of the houses at one story.
“There’s no question of that the second story is going to be visible,” said Commissioner Jeffrey Jennings, adding, “I’d rather it wasn’t there at all. The problem I have is that if you drop it down to one story it’s going to have virtually the same view impact from that particular site.”
Vice Chair Brotman expressed support for narrower, taller buildings as opposed to shorter, wider buildings, but also complained that other commissioners, specifically John Mazza, were making demands that went beyond the normal scope of the Planning Commission.
“You’re micromanaging design, and that’s absurd,” said Brotman.
“It’s a sad day if the Planning Commission shouldn’t look at site plan reviews, because they may change something in another year,” responded Mazza.
Another concern raised at the three-and-a-half-hour meeting was that the homes would be located close to the edge of a bluff, where erosion could eventually threaten other residential properties that sit at the foot of the bluff on Malibu Road.
“We are not opposed to the project, but we continue to have significant concerns regarding the impact of the project on the stability of the hillside immediately above our homes,” homeowner Russell Kern said during public comment. “One of the major problems here is that the staff and the applicant have failed to define these bluffs as coastal bluffs.”
As of a new state regulation in 2005, coastal bluffs are defined as subject to wave action, as opposed to other bluffs that do not face direct surf. Because coastal bluffs potentially face accelerated erosion, regulations for bluff-top development on the coast are more stringent than those for other bluffs, and require houses to be set farther back from the edge of the bluff.
City Geographer Chris Dean went over the plans for the new houses and clarified that although the site location is not on a coastal bluff, the new setbacks planned by Gold’s group are in line with the more strict coastal bluff regulations.
“It actually met the geotechnical setback if this were a coastal bluff, without applying that coastal bluff definition,” said Dean.
The final vote included amendments about requiring light fixtures to comply with dark skies regulations and landscaped trees to be kept to no taller than 35 feet, as well as adopting the final changes in lot size and location.