Despite Progress, Plan for Malibu Still on Table

Nearly two years after the California Coastal Commission unanimously rejected Los Angeles County’s land-use plan for Malibu, the planning blueprint that ultimately will regulate development in this affluent, environmentally complex coastal community still faces several hurdles before it can be approved.

Commission Chairman Melvin L. Nutter said that although “real progress has been made” on the controversial plan since the county submitted it in March, 1983, enough uncertainty over several key issues surfaced at a recent hearing to warrant delaying a decision for as long as three more months.

Commissioner Marshall Grossman said the county and the commission are still “very far off” from agreement over critical issues. Although he expects the coastal panel to approve changes in the county plan in the spring, he warned that the long struggle to attain a coastal program for Malibu will not end there. “It will then be up to the county to act,” he said.

The state denied the county’s plan two years ago and the county did not work on it for a year. Although the county had the option of resubmitting the plan with changes, it waited for the commission staff to begin working on suggested modifications.

The commission is now reviewing those modifications that would bring the county plan into conformity with state coastal laws. It may act on the modifications at an April 22-26 meeting in Los Angeles. If the coastal body approves them, it will then be up to the county Board of Supervisors to either accept the modified plan or submit a new one.

Some who have followed the arduous struggle to establish development guidelines in Malibu say the county and the commission are closer to agreement than they have been at any other time.

“There was a feeling among everyone there (at the Jan. 10 hearing) that there is a possibility of concluding this. That makes us feel elated,” said Madelyn Glickfeld, land-use expert for the Malibu Township Council, a private homeowners group that for years has favored restraints on growth in a community racked by development pressures.

Two years ago, the county and the commission could not have been farther apart.

The land-use plan prepared by the county Department of Regional Planning had proposed a maximum of 12,095 new residential units, including 795 for Pepperdine University, which wants to expand its campus.

In rejecting the plan, the Coastal Commission said the amount of new development the county wanted to allow was excessive and labeled it an embarrassment.

Now, however, the county has agreed to a far lower level of development--5,801 new housing units, or less than half of what it originally proposed.

The county also has indicated that many policies it found unpalatable are now acceptable, such as those suggested by the commission staff to enhance beach access and protection of sensitive marine resources.

“The county can accept many of the suggested modifications,” 4th District Supervisor Deane Dana told the commission. “There is no question,” he added, that the county’s plan had been improved.

But the county has flatly rejected the Transfer of Development Credit Program, a method devised by the commission staff to offset the impact of new development. And other issues raised by some of the 200 people who turned out for the Jan. 10 hearing in Los Angeles suggested that much negotiation is needed before a land-use plan can be approved.

The Transfer of Development Credit Program requires major subdividers or developers of multiple- unit projects to remove the development potential on certain small mountain lots. They would have to purchase the development rights but agree not to build anything on the lots, thus assuring that no net increase in the amount of building occurs in the Malibu coastal zone.

Called a Windfall

In explaining the county’s opposition, regional planning director Norman Murdoch told the commission that the program is counter-productive and basically a windfall for the owners of the undeveloped lots.

The current market value of one development credit (made up about of three small lots) is about $18,000.

“We ask you to please, please not burden the plan with a requirement for a TDC (Transfer of Development Credit) program,” Murdoch said. He asked the commission to explore alternatives, although he offered no specific ideas.

The commission also heard from scores of landowners, conservationists and officials from county, federal and state agencies, who recited a precise but familiar litany of complaints. Also testifying were representatives of state Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara) and Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), whose districts include Malibu.

The handful who stayed until the end of the marathon session, which ran from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., did so to hear the comments of the commissioners, a majority of whom must approve the land-use plan before the county regains authority to regulate development along the Malibu coast. Local governments lost the power to control coastal development in 1972 when voters passed Proposition 20, which created the commission.

Troublesome Issues

The commissioners were troubled by several issues, most notably the capacity of Pacific Coast Highway, the intensity of commercial development, sewers and the role of Pepperdine University in Malibu’s overall growth.

Chairman Nutter said that Malibu “probably has already exceeded” the capacity of its infrastructure of roads and waste-disposal systems.

Referring to the suggested modifications, he said that the commission staff has tried to provide an “escape valve” by instituting a development ceiling; no more than 2,110 residential units can be approved before improvements to Pacific Coast Highway are made. But Nutter suggested that the development cap was not enough.

“There still seems to be a lot in the way of severe constraints” that neither the county nor the commission staff has adequately addressed, he said.

Commissioner George W. Shipp III repeated a criticism he made two years ago when he decried the lack of a comprehensive sewer plan for Malibu.

Both the county plan and the commission staff have called for a regional sewer system. But Shipp said the county has “moved with the speed of rigor mortis” on plans to build one.

Sewer proponents contend that Malibu’s aging septic tanks have caused health and geology problems and need to be replaced. Many Malibu residents want a regional system--notably homeowners on Big Rock Mesa where the cause of a massive landslide is thought to be related to failed septic tanks.

Limiting Factors

But others, such as the Township Council’s Glickfeld, have reservations about the growth-inducing impact of a sewer system and want assurance that the sewer plant be designed to accommodate only the reduced level of development outlined by the commission staff.

Other commissioners called for an immediate study on the feasibility of widening Pacific Coast Highway. “I don’t know why we’re putting the cart before the horse,” Commissioner Michael Wornum said.

The staff suggested conducting a study of traffic levels and possible improvements to the coastal route when 1,794 units have been approved. But a traffic expert, UCLA urban planning professor Martin Wachs, told the commission that delaying the study was “completely inappropriate” because the highway already is too congested.

Wachs said that neither the county nor the commission has recognized the potential impact of Pepperdine University’s expansion plans and the Adamson Cos.’ proposed hotel-commercial complex on traffic. Those two developments alone, he said, would produce more daily trips than the new residential units.

Commissioner Grossman asked for tighter restrictions on commercial development in the Civic Center. The staff has allowed close to 2.5 million square feet of commercial space, which is roughly equal to two regional shopping centers. “It’s crazy to think of a buildout in the Civic Center equal to Century City,” he said.

“We are dealing here with a treasure, a state treasure akin to Big Sur and the Carmel coast. This is indeed our Riviera,” Grossman said.

But until the county and the commission settle their differences, the future of Malibu is uncertain.