La Paz Plans Set to Go to City Council

• Center Proposal Continues to Be Mired in Controversy

BY BILL KOENEKER

A highly controversial shopping center/office complex known as La Paz planned for the Civic Center area is scheduled for Malibu City Council consideration Sept. 22.
Malibu La Paz Ranch, as it is formally known, consists of two projects, a development agreement that includes a larger shopping center in exchange for donation of a city hall and a smaller project without a city hall.
The matter was heard in January by the planning commission, which recommended the smaller version with no city hall.
In April, the applicant submitted a new wastewater collection treatment and re-use system for the projects, which is described by the planning staff as “materially different than the previously reviewed onsite water treatment system.” The new system has been reviewed and incorporated into the final environmental impact report, according to planners.
Several weeks ago, a newly installed planning panel refused to rehear the matter and urged the application to be forwarded to the city council.
Folks in Malibu are divided into camps about whether they support another large-scale shopping center, even if it has offices.
Theories abound about what is going on behind the scenes. It was only two weeks ago that the public learned that the protocol for hearing the matter was directed by the city attorney’s office rather than the planning staff.
Questions linger about why the planning commission gave up its authority to approve or give a thumbs down to the project that was within their jurisdiction—the smaller project—if indeed it did.
The larger project contains a development agreement and is outside the scope of the commission’s jurisdiction since they cannot approve a DA, but can only make recommendations. The city council must decide and even then the development agreement must go to the California Coastal Commission for final approval.
The commissioners’ unusual action was said by some to be “not doing their job,” but others were equally vocal, wondering whether they were merely reasserting their authority in the matter.
Others have said the move was political in the sense that by not rehearing the matter, it will force the city council to consider the planning panel’s original recommendation.
That commission included John Sibert, who is now on the city council. No one knows whether Sibert will recuse himself since he has already made a recommendation. What would eventually happen to the projects if the council can only muster a 2-2 vote? A tie means a motion fails.
Another question that has been posed time and again, even to the consultants, is why fight so hard for an additional 12,000 square feet that involves giving so much away—a 20,000-square-foot city hall and then has to lease another 10,000 to 20,000 square feet before construction begins.
“That is a good business plan and answers almost all of the questions,” he said.