Malibu residents expressed their growing concerns about the Civic Center Draft Guidelines at Monday night’s Planning Commission meeting.
Two weeks ago, the guidelines faced strong opposition from a group of citizens who thought them premature and poorly drafted. Residents reiterated their concerns about the guidelines’ concepts in front of the commission. The speakers expressed opinions on the proposed water treatment solutions, increased development allow-ances, street realignment and creating a cul-de-sac on Civic Center Way.
While Drew Purvis, the city’s senior planning director, stated that the guidelines are intended to propose integrated themes and plans for infrastructures so that developers who own the properties can work in unison, the general public had doubts.
Marshall Thompson, president of the Malibu Park Homeowners’ Association, brought up a poignant point. “As the Civic Center goes, so goes the rest of Malibu,” he said.
There has to be a justification for this build-out, he said, and it will not come from beachgoers who do not spend a lot of money in Malibu. Rather, it will encourage zoning changes that will allow subdivisions and more residential build-out, said Thompson.
Resident Ann Hoffman said the guidelines give developers new rights by allowing a package sewage-treatment plant instead of letting developers deal with their own septic systems, which would limit the size of development.
“It matters to me because the treatment plant would allow for a bigger commercial development,” she said.
Don Schmitz, representing Malibu Ranch La Paz property owners, said the owners of two key parcels in the Civic Center area, who have had applications before the city since last year, are concerned about the original language for the treatment plant.
Additionally, property owners do not like the restrictions placed on them by the city’s guidelines, including the 50- to 100-foot linear wetland path and setback guidelines, which they are providing in their plans anyway, he said.
Another speaker was troubled by the mixed messages sent by the city on this matter. “Even though they say the guidelines don’t have legal effect, they do,” said Jay Liebig. “Are we going to permit a million and a half square feet of development in the Civic Center?”
Steve Uhring, of the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy, said this issue deserves more community input. He thought the plans were badly drafted, and that in case of a disaster, people will not be able to evacuate if the Civic Center is redesigned as the guidelines indicate.
“A significant number of people want the Civic Center to remain open,” said Uhring. The group he represents has drafted its own Civic Center guidelines. He suggested that alternatives be presented to the public as well.
Georgianna McBurney implored the commission to schedule three neighborhood meetings, stating that Councilmember Sharon Barovsky was in support of that idea.
“It’s imperative that the city have a water map of the Civic Center,” she said, “to see how the area can deal with additional treated water and drainage.”
“Where will the water go?” she added.
Chair Ed Lipnick explained at the beginning of the commission’s discussion of the matter that it is not the function of the commission to approve or disapprove the guidelines.
The commission was directed by the City Council to review the draft guidelines and present its opinion on the draft.
“If we don’t adopt the guidelines, we’re going to look worse than Calabasas, we’ll look like Ventura Boulevard,” said Lipnick.
“I think some people might be missing the point,” said Barry Hogan, planning director. “This set of guidelines presents an opportunity to present a single vision.”
“I’m in favor of common planning as opposed to no planning,” said David Fox, commissioner.
But before it can decide on anything, the commission wants more time to reflect on the comments and material. After another lengthy debate, the commission adjourned at a late hour. The commission plans to revisit the guidelines on April 2, without further public comment for the moment.
New office rules eases burdens for home businesses
By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer
The Planning Comm-ission, at Monday night’s meeting, unanimously adopted a new Home Occupation Zoning Text Amendment that will make it easier for home-based businesses to operate in Malibu.
During the past year, the current home office ordinance was under fire because it was thought to be too restrictive by residents who organized and requested that the rules be relaxed.
According to city staff, the amendments to the home occupation section of the code have been specifically tailored to the unique needs of Malibu. The most significant portion of the amendment is the allowance of workers and clients in home occupation settings, according to a staff report.
With the new rules, educational businesses, like those who give piano lessons or swimming lessons, will be allowed to have up to six students onsite at one time and home-based offices or studios will be allowed to have up to three clients and three employees at once.
At one point during the meeting, the commission was concerned about opening a Pandora’s box-making room for abuses of the ordinance, but objections were outweighed by the benefits of the amendments overall.
Ann Hoffman, a proponent of the new amendment, said it would help reduce code enforcement cases. It will save time for everyone, including city staff, she said.
But not everyone agreed that the change was beneficial. Malibu resident Frank Basso opposed the amendment because he thought the relaxed rules could have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods.
“How can it be enforced?” he asked. “Let’s do some planning and take care of the people who want to live in their houses and have their kids play on the street. It’s too liberal.”
Efraim Fader spoke on behalf of the Malibu Township Council. He referred the commission to a 1997 proposal that had a more detailed ordinance. Fader started calculating what the new rules could mean for residential neighborhoods. Six students in five classes a day can equal 60 car trips a day, he said.
“And consider these people using the bathroom,” said Fader, referring to over-usage of septic systems.
Commissioner Ted Vaill, who served on the code enforcement taskforce, agreed that the MTC’s thoughts made sense. Staff did not address the multiple classes per day issue, he said.
But after debating in detail, and making a few changes in the amendments’ wording, the commission approved the home occupation amendments unanimously.
In other matters, the commission reviewed a zoning text amendment that would allow business owners to put their logos inside the signs in a shopping mall.
“The reason we proposed this amendment,” said commission chair Ed Lipnick,” is because we felt that it was a waste of the commission’s time to have applicants go through a variance system and we approve the signs 98 percent of the time.”
But some public speakers disagreed with the amendment.
“This is a roll-over-and-die kind of amendment,” said Jay Liebig, a Malibu resident, in opposition to the amendment.
After hearing comments, Commissioner Richard Carrigan apologized for suggesting that the commission proposed the amendments and he successfully retracted the proposal, with com-
missioners Ted Vaill and Andrew Stern concurring that it may be too liberal.
“We should control and prevent worst-case scenarios and I am reversing the position I had on June 19, 2000,” said Carrigan.
The motion failed after Lipnick motioned to approve the amendment and Commissioner David Fox seconded it, but Vaill, Stern and Carrigan voted against it.
