2 on Council Assail Plan to Allow More Building : Development: They oppose proposal to let construction proceed for 150 homes despite moratorium. Council majority defends the plan.

A proposal that would allow at least 150 additional single-family homes to be built in Malibu despite a restrictive development moratorium has drawn the ire of two members of the City Council, who say they will oppose the plan when it is considered on Tuesday.

“It’s a lot of smoke and mirrors. . . . I would call it environmental window dressing,” said Councilman Walt Keller, who joined Councilwoman Carolyn Van Horn in criticizing the plan.

Other council members, however, defended the fairness of the draft version of a law that would allow builders to proceed with construction if they have already received approval for their projects from Los Angeles County and the California Coastal Commission.

“All in all, it’s a very fair and balanced way to deal with single-family home applicants who’ve already gone through the Coastal Commission process,” Councilwoman Missy Zeitsoff said.

Although agreeing that would-be builders who have satisfied both county and Coastal Commission requirements should be given special consideration, the five council members are sharply divided over the conditions they would impose.

Under the proposed law, such persons would be allowed to build, but would face numerous restrictions, including a maximum of 5,000 cubic yards of grading and a height limit of 35 feet. Except on beachfront properties, houses would not be permitted to cover more than 35% of their lot.

The issue is certain to spark heated debate in the community. Some residents believe the restrictions are unreasonably harsh, others contend they are too lenient, and still others contend the projects should not be exempted under any circumstances.

Although council members on both sides of the issue say at least 150 homes would be affected, Patt Healy, co-chairwoman of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth, said the figure may include “well over 200” projects.

Malibu’s leaders imposed a development moratorium, clamping down on new home construction and banning commercial and multifamily development, on March 28, the day Malibu became a city.

By law, Malibu may restrict new construction for up to 2 1/2 years while it develops a general plan to serve as a blueprint for the community. A task force appointed by the City Council has been laboring for several months to come up with a general plan.

The latest proposal would not be the first time the City Council has allowed exceptions to the building ban.

For example, in May it ruled that work could proceed on about 90 homes whose builders had obtained Coastal Commission permits and county building permits before cityhood. (The latest exemptions would include projects that received approvals from the Coastal Commission after Malibu incorporated.)

Last month, by a 3-2 vote, the City Council allowed residents to remodel existing homes subject to certain conditions, including a provision that no more than 7,200 square feet be added and that maximum lot coverage, excluding driveways, patios and decks, not exceed 35%. Keller and Van Horn dissented.

A draft of the latest exemption ordinance was made public last week, having been put together by a city planner from the individual suggestions of council members.

Keller and Van Horn complained that the draft appeared to represent a majority view, while omitting elements they would like to see included.

“It looks like we’ve been totally ignored,” Keller said. “Speaking for myself, I just wish that my suggestions could have been listed.”

Keller and Van Horn each favor an ordinance that would be more restrictive than the draft version, including smaller grading and height limits, and emphasis on view protection for existing homes.

However, Zeitsoff and Councilman Mike Caggiano said the draft ordinance is already restrictive, and that to make it tougher would only invite lawsuits from people whose projects will be affected. Mayor Larry Wan could not be reached for comment.

“My concern is that if we start lopping seven feet off the tops of homes at this late stage in the process, we might have to raise taxes or cut another sheriff’s car (from the budget) to afford the flood of litigation,” Caggiano said.