Council Debates Look for Cross Creek Road

• Former Adversaries Return for Appeal of Malibu Colony House Construction

BY BILL KOENEKER

It was supposed to be a consent item of the contract bid recommended by the staff at this week’s Malibu City Council meeting for the Cross Creek Road redesign planned for the commercial hub of Malibu.

However, council members, who have seen the plans on several occasions, almost denied the $1.6 million contract and turned the agenda item into a referendum on how the Civic Center design aesthetic should shape up.

“I would like to see hitching posts and am opposed to concrete gutters and sidewalks,” said Councilmember Ken Kearsley, who insisted the street should be lined with decomposed granite walkways.

“I want to see a place for arts and history and bike racks,” added Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich.

Both Kearsley and Conley Ulich insisted the city should take the most “green” building stance possible, since the design plan for the commercial area would be scrutinized.

“I have seen the results of DG. It adds to the ambiance. It will take a load off the [storm water treatment facility]. By the way it is a thing of beauty,” added Kearsley.

As politely as possible, the staff disagreed and explained how the grit of the DG surface would clog treatment pumps and the high pedestrian traffic area would suffer problems underfoot on the dirt-like surface. Council members were also told the DG surface is not permeable and would wash off during storms and enter the treatment plant, causing problems.

“If we don’t keep it green I won’t support it. We invested too much on cleaning the creek,” added Conley Ulich.

“We need to make it as green as possible,” agreed Kearsley. “This is the start of what we want in the Civic Center. We want to set the standard for [future development]. It will help improve the environment.”

Councilmember Andy Stern attempted to put the brakes on the new direction of some of the council, after members were told a redesign of the current plans might mean losing the grant funding of the project.

“This came before us. We saw it and it came back to us. Now you are saying something different. The porous concrete seems to accomplish the goal. What else do you want?” Stern asked.

Kearsley made a motion calling for a redesign of the project, including the new DG material and other new elements for the project.

Mayor Jeff Jennings said he did not feel comfortable dictating materials, but agreed the project would be a visible one. “The design and the plan must be highly environmental. Can we go forward if we redesign it? Do you want to pass on the $700,000 grant?” asked Jennings, who said he would not support the motion because the staff insisted the grant funding might be lost.

The motion failed on a 2-2 vote with Councilmember Sharon Barovsky absent. Stern and the mayor dissented.

Stern subsequently put forth a motion calling for the staff recommendation including installing pervious earth tone colored concrete in all of the sidewalks on Cross Creek Road as well as pervious asphalt in the parking areas. The motion succeeded by a unanimous vote.

Colony Appeal Denied

It was old adversaries lining up in council chambers this week, when an appeal of permits granted by the city’s planning commission for the construction of a new home in the Colony was heard.

Malibu attorney Frank Angel, and environmental activists Marcia Hansom and Roy van de Hoek joined Steve Littlejohn in challenging the construction of a new, two-story 5200 square foot, single-family home with an attached garage, pool and spa.

“There is something terribly rotten in the planning department,” said Angel, referring to the department’s findings on the project.

Just as a reminder, Angel recapped about the past opposition to the proposed BeauRivage bed and breakfast and how the group convinced the California Coastal Commission to deny the plans that were previously approved by the city.

Angel, Hanscom and others made it clear that they believed the commission would side with them again on the issues involved in the Colony house plans.

At least one council member was convinced of Angel’s intent and the probable appeal before the coastal panel.

“The case is barely stopping here on its way to the Coastal Commission,” Jennings said.

However, most council members seemed to take umbrage at Angel’s comments about the city’s stance on its coastal policies and his remarks about the municipality and its planning department.

“It defies my imagination how someone can slam us and our staff. How is that to the client’s advantage,” said Stern.

Jennings said once the coastal agency had adopted the Local Coastal Program they made it clear it was up to the city to apply the policies. “We were given clear instructions,” he said.

Angel went on to complain that the staff report had indicated there was no expert justification for the appellants’ complaints, but the 10-page letter with attachment submitted by him was not part of the record or staff report.

It could not be found and the council took a 15-minute break to gather the info and read his letter.

Nevertheless, that did not stop the council from ultimately denying the appeal.

The biggest issue was not the house, but a row of cypress trees that were the focus of attention because of conflicting assertions by the applicant and the appellants about their value as roosting and nesting sites for birds from the nearby lagoon and how the trees may or may not be impacted by the construction.