More details have come to light about what occurred prior to the controversial Dec. 1 Planning Commission meeting that led to the firing of two commissioners and the resignation of another. In the months before the meeting, a series of correspondences took place among city staff and representatives of Bill Chadwick, who is attempting to build a home on Broad Beach, and Lou Adler, who is trying to appeal the permits Chadwick has received.
A meeting took place on Oct. 28 at City Hall with parties on both sides of the Adler/Chadwick situation and several city staff members in attendance. City Attorney Christi Hogin, who arranged the meeting, said the reason for it was because the city had been bombarded with attorney letters from both parties. At this meeting, she said she would be able to hear the opinions and law interpretations of both sides of the issue.
Adler’s attorney, Edward Burg, said he thought the meeting was an opportunity for the city to hear the concerns of his client and the other party prior to city staff reaching a final decision on whether Adler could appeal Chadwick’s project. For that reason, Burg said he was surprised later that day to find a letter on his desk that was dated Oct. 27 from Assistant City Planner Masa Alkire rejecting the request for an appeal. Burg then sent a letter to Hogin on Oct. 31. “I cannot fathom why the city would do this,” he wrote. “What was the point of inviting us to a meeting to hear from both sides if a decision was rendered after the date of the invitation [sic] but before the date of the meeting?”
Hogin responded with a letter the following week. She stated she understood his point with respect to the timing of the Alkire letter and the meeting, but urged him not to overreact. She explained her reasoning for the meeting. She further wrote how Burg’s memo implied his side had not been given the opportunity to voice its opinion to the city. “I would not understand how Mr. Adler could possibly feel offended by a process that-at the city’s expense-has offered him the opportunity to raise his concerns so long after the original approval,” she wrote.
The project’s original approval from the city came in the form of a Plot Plan Review Determination in August 2001, while Pepperdine University still owned the property. Although statements have been made about the permits for the project being issued at that time, it is not true. The permits were not issued until September 2003. However, when an appeal is brought to the city, as Adler is attempting to do, it is not of the actual permits but rather a department approval of a project, as was issued in 2001.
In September 2002, the California Coastal Commission granted a coastal development permit for the project, although it made alterations. Then, Adler made a request for the permit to be revoked. In January 2003, the Coastal Commission voted to reject that request.
The project then received permits on Sept. 25. Just two days before that, Adler’s consultant, Drew Purvis (who was the planning director until March of this year), sent a letter to Planning Manager Mike Teruya, requesting the revocation of the 2001 approval for the project. He argued that the planning director in 2001 did not properly follow the stringline rule that is applied to beachfront properties to prevent the building-out of structures seaward past the line of adjacent beachfront homes. The next day, Assistant City Planner Alkire responded with a letter, stating city staff had looked into Purvis’ concerns and found no reason to revoke the 2001 decision.
Following the issuance of the permits, Adler’s team requested a stop-work-order on the project. The city granted the request for one month, because of the controversy surrounding the situation. This led to the Oct. 28 meeting. Following that meeting and the exchange of letters between Hogin and Burg, Burg still approached the city with a request to appeal the project. City Clerk Lisa Pope, after seeking advice from Hogin, refused to accept the appeal. Burg told The Malibu Times he questions whether Pope has the ability to do that. Hogin said she does, because only valid appeals need to be accepted, and Burg’s was not valid.
With Burg unable to bring his appeal to the city through the clerk, he said his only other option was to approach the Planning Commission. He issued a packet of information to each commissioner on Oct. 30. Then, on Dec. 1 he came to the meeting to make his request.
This led to the well-publicized events of which the commission voted to hear the appeal at a future meeting. Since Burg’s request was not on the agenda, the commission was accused of violating the Brown Act. Councilmember Andy Stern and Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky fired their respective appointed commissioners, Chair Robert Adler and Vice Chair Deirdre Roney. In protest, Commissioner Richard Carrigan (who did not attend the Dec. 1 meeting) resigned.