Last week, several members of Malibu’s City Council, including Mayor Joan House and councilmembers Tom Hasse and Sharon Barovsky, made a pilgrimage north to Sacramento to try and persuade the governor and the Legislature to let Malibu solve its own problems.

The primary item on the city agenda and that of the three Malibu officials was the new Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which is going to be the master land plan for Malibu. It’s this plan that is probably going to ultimately decide how much development there maybe in the Civic Center area, how many hotel and motel rooms Malibu will finally get, and what the city will finally have to do with its waste water, whether a sewer or a retrofit of septic systems.

Normally those types of decisions are local city matters providing they meet the minimal standards of the Coastal Act as policed by the California Coastal Commission. But for Malibu it’s a different situation, because last year the Legislature passed and the governor signed a bill called AB 988. This bill took local power away from the city and turned over the ultimate decision-making power to the Coastal Commission to make the Malibu Local Coastal Plan.

It was rumored they did this because they–the governor, the Speaker of the Assembly Bob Hertzberg and the president pro tem of the Senate, Sen. John Burton–were tired of waiting for Malibu to come up with its own plan. They were even more tired of getting phone calls from well-heeled Malibu constituents who were lobbying them about things like adding a deck onto their Malibu homes.

Once Malibu gets a LCP those type of matters will be purely a local concern and will no longer need Coastal Commission approval and people will instead be pestering their councilmembers and not the governor, et al.

If the LCP is going to return permitting power to the city, why are Malibu councilmembers so anxious about the Coastal Commission writing the plan?

They’re anxious because they know whoever writes the plan sets the priorities. And right now, if there are any disagreements, and they’re probably bound to be some, it’s the Coastal Commission and its staff that make the final decisions. With AB 988 the commission doesn’t need Malibu’s consent or approval. In fact, it can ignore the city if it so chooses. So Malibu’s city leaders went to Sacramento to try and get political support for the city so that it would be politically difficult, if not impossible, for the Coastal Commission to just ignore the city.

As part of that plan, Malibu struck first and Christi Hogin, interim city manager, rewrote the Malibu version of the LCP, which Malibu legislators hope will become the basis for the final LCP. This LCP will shortly be working its way up through the approval process to the Coastal Commission.

But the Coastal Commission, its chair, Sara Wan, and its director, Peter Douglas (reportedly no great fan of the City of Malibu), are not just sitting back and letting Malibu grab the initiative. They’re also moving ahead and recently got a $100,000 budget allocation to write the Coastal Commission version of the LCP. They also hired former Malibu Planning Director Joyce Parker to prepare their version of the Malibu LCP document.

Malibu political leaders asked several legislators to intervene and ask the Coastal Commission not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to begin with the proposed Malibu plan written by Hogin. Several legislators appeared sympathetic and said, in effect, “We don’t care who writes the damn thing, we just want to see that it gets done, and done quickly.”

But who writes the plan may be very significant to the City of Malibu because the city and the Coastal Commission may have very different agendas.

There are two potential areas of contention. One is the issue of public access to local beaches and the second, that there be sufficient visitor-serving amenities for the public when they come to the beaches. To the Coastal Commission, public access can mean more than just vertical access ways to the beach. It can also mean sufficient parking so that people can park near the beaches. This gets into neighborhood parking regulations. It can also involve visitor-serving amenities like hotels, motels, B&Bs, high-end restaurants, low-end restaurants, hot dog stands, and whatever.

The city and its citizens have often been less than receptive to things that will attract visitors, increase local traffic, diminish local parking, and create public safety problems for the city. The Coastal Commission’s attitude is that the beaches belong to everyone and it’s not about to let the city limit their use.

The LCP could also decide what goes into the Malibu Civic Center–what parks, what ball fields and where they’re located. So our local legislators made the rounds from the governor’s office, to Resource Secretary Mary Nichols, to State Parks Director Rusty Areias, to senators Burton, Kuehl, O’Connell to Assembly members Hannah Beth Jackson, Fran Pavley, Tony Cardenas and others, to plead their case, again and again. Only time will tell if they were successful.

City legislative priorities

– Let Malibu write its Local coastal Plan

– Allow the city to limit the number of rehab facilities in any one area

– Establish a marine sanctuary

Hoping to avoid setting a precedent, opening a door to illegal building activities, the Planning Commission at its May 21 meeting continued an application to obtain a variance for grading that was already completed, to its next meeting on June 4.

The applicant in question requested a variance to build an 8,250 square foot residence on Porterdale Road after he had already graded a pad on the property in the past. The commissioners questioned the integrity of the application, which requested legalization for grading that was already done.

“It’s difficult because we’re trying to get compliance, not punish,” said Commissioner Ed Lipnick in a later interview. “We could theoretically make them put the hillside back, but what good is that going do for anybody?”

Because of the legal questions involved in such cases, the commission has asked for more legal support at future meetings.

Commissioners were hesitant in making a decision on the application when they were told that historical facts indicated that the applicant had graded other lots in the past and obtained after-the-fact legalization for the grading on those as well.

After learning about the prior activities, the commission had to decide whether this application should be reviewed independently or in conjunction with the other subdivisions.

“I’m glad I don’t drink,” said Commissioner Andrew Stern, perplexed about the situation.

The applicant’s permit coordinator, Terry Valente, was also surprised by the confusion. “I was quite shocked when I found that the city was not aware of the grading pads. The owner thought that [the grading] had been legalized,” she said.

The alleged illegal grading situation further raised questions for the commissioners who wanted to be assured that the builder had not purposely withheld information on his application.

Lipnick asked planning Director Barry Hogan to clarify what possible remedies the city had to sanction applicants when they do illegal grading.

Hogan responded that the city usually seeks compliance with the code. “All we can do is double the fee,” he said.

Carrigan did not feel that that was enough and Hogan suggested the commission ask council to pass an ordinance for future cases, but for this case, the penalty cannot be changed.

In other matters at the last planning meeting, the commission unanimously approved a request to build a 3,477 square foot home on West Beach Lane despite flaws that would have prevented the subdivision on which the parcel sits to take place if it had been presented today.

As he voted to approve the project, Lipnick said, “It’s obvious that the subdivision would not be approved today, but I do recognize that in some ways we had a fast shuffle on the subdivision at the time.”

Nearby condominium residents were concerned about view blockage and the potential effects of dirt pilings that had been done on some the lots, which are right behind their homes.

However, planning staff determined that these concerns were not issues to be addressed with this application. The subdivision had been approved in 1995 and grading was approved at the time.

Jim Cariker, the applicant, gave some background to the commissioners.

This was the first subdivision approved in Malibu. One of the reasons why the Planning Commission approved the project at that time is that it felt this would be a good transition between the condos below and larger homes above the project.

“I believe that these houses conform within the neighborhood character and they are affordable, which is a good thing for Malibu,” said Cariker.

Four homes are already completed in the subdivision, which includes eight parcels.

Given that a prior commission had approved the project, Lipnick asked Charlene Kabrin, former commissioner, to clarify the motives for their approval.

“This is the only layout in which he could get as many lots as he was entitled to,” said Kabrin, as she explained that at the time the commission was not necessarily happy with it but they went along with planning staff’s recommendations because they were not very experienced.

But an attorney representing nearby residents on Cavaleri Road requested a no vote on the matter because the fill dirt on the lots is high and steep and some rocks and mud have already begun to come down onto their patios, he said.

However, the application before the commission is only for one lot and the commission again asked if this was a matter that concerned the lot in question.

Hogan agreed that the neighbor’s concerns were legitimate but he thought this was something that could be worked on separately at a later time.

If you see a Malibu condo owner around town, be pleasant to them. Give them a hug. Treat them well. Ask them if they might want to sell their place. Ask them nicely; we need them.

Buyers and realtors alike would like to see more condos on the market; the number of local condo owners willing to sell is extremely low; less than four percent of all the Malibu condos are currently listed for sale.

During the dead of winter recently, the inventory was less than two percent. That translates to about 35-40 available listings for all of Malibu in recent weeks, ranging from about $210,000 to more than $700,000. How are first-time and lower-priced buyers supposed to find a place to live in Malibu with so little choice?

The condo inventory problem is exacerbated by home prices overall. Since prices have risen so dramatically since 1997, as much as 60-70 percent, very few homes in Malibu are offered for under $500,000.

Two recent house listings in Corral Canyon went into escrow relatively quickly, with offering prices in the $400,000s. Excluding mobile homes, a Southern California buyer willing to pay twice the regional median average for a Malibu residence is limited exclusively to a condo or townhouse.

At one point in January, only 10 units were listed for under $400,000. That’s out of approximately 1,200 condo and townhouse total units for all of Malibu.

Currently, with approximately 40 listings overall, the median asking price is about $375,000.

Previous to a tight selection during the last several years, the inventory would exceed 70 listings in less hectic times.

The following is an inventory of total units and median asking prices for all condo listings in mid-April of each year:

2001: 38, $375K; 2000: 42, $372K; 1999: 38, $324K; 1998: 46, $297K; 1997: 53, $339K; 1996: 57, $275K.

During 1997, the new Pointe of Malibu, across from Point Dume, added to the inventory and raised the average asking price, due to the newer and larger nature of the units. It was one of the last new complexes planned.

The new Vista Pacifica under construction near Trancas/Bailard (not be confused with Vista Pacifica adjacent Webster School) will offer almost 40 new units at asking prices around the $700,000 level. Several have sold already.

The only other future development will be approximately 20 units near Webster School across from Maisson Deville. Otherwise, it may be years before any new condos and townhouses get past the drawing board in Malibu.

Even in many of the larger complexes such as Malibu Villas, Malibu Gardens, Zuma Bay Villas and Malibu Canyon Village, none or few units are for sale. The selling has also ceased at the Bella Mar complex at Cavalleri/PCH. All units are for rent only.

About two condos sell every week in Malibu. According to Malibu realtor Judy Van Schoyck, who specializes in condo sales, the median sale price during the past two years was $320,000 for listings on the land side and $340,000 for units on the beach (including Tivoli Cove and the Malibu Bay Club).

Van Schoyck reports that market time was very quick, less than three months in 2000, for an average sale. That certainly makes sense considering the supply and demand factors.

Condo owners face an attractive combination these days of increased prices and little competition should they elect to sell.

Rick Wallace of the Coldwell Banker company has been a Malibu realtor for 13 years. He can be reached at RICKMALIBU-realestate.com.