CCC Members Seek Appeal of Broad Beach Building Permit
• Two Panalists Raise Access Issues
BY BILL KOENEKER
Two California Coastal Commission members want to appeal a Malibu Planning Commission decision approving the construction of a Broad Beach residence contending that the development approved "is not consistent with the policies and provisions of the Local Coastal Program with regard to shoreline development and public access."
The item was heard at Wednesday's meeting after the Malibu Surfside News went press.
The CCC staff recommends that the commission determine that a "substantial issue" exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed relative to the approved project's conformity to the policies and provision of the city's LCP.
Given the relatively new status of the commission and its members, the appeal may be closely watched, if it is taken up by the coastal panel.
Applicants Stephen and Jean Moran Kaplan were given approval by the Malibu planning commission to demolish an existing two-story, single-family residence and associated development and construct a new 5064-square-foot single-family residence, a 2012-square-foot detached accessory structure (consisting of a 659-square-foot garage and a 375-square-foot theater on the first story and 597-square-foot guesthouse and 381-square-foot gym on the second story), a connector bridge between the residence and accessory structure, a 12,237-square-foot covered patio, new spa, fire pit, roof deck, roof-top solar panels, hardscape, a new alternative wastewater treatment system and a new foundation system consisting of grade beams and 37 piles and a 14.8-foot-wide contiguous public view corridor.
Commissioners Jana Zimmer and Brian Brennan are seeking the appeal of the permit. If the commission finds a substantial issue to be raised, staff notes it anticipates a de novo permit consideration by the commission at a future commission hearing, according to the CCC staff report.
The staff missive notes an emergency permit was never obtained for a rock revetment placed on the property after the 1997-98 storms,
The property was included in the emergency permit obtained by 77 Broad Beach residences and "is located approximately 30 ft. seaward of the seaward most dripline of the new at grade deck approved by the city."
"The applicant must either remove the temporary emergency revetment in its entirety or obtain a regular coastal permit for its permanent authorization," the CCC staff report states.
The report notes the application of the Broad Beach Geological Hazard Abatement District is incomplete. One of the filing requirements for the application is a full evaluation of all other feasible alternative forms of shorelines protection that would serve to minimize adverse impacts to coastal re-sources. Such alternative forms of permanent shoreline protection would include, but not be limited to, construction of a vertical sea wall and or relocation or removal of some or all portions of the revetment to the farthest feasible landward location in order to minimize adverse impacts to coastal resources while protecting existing residential development.
"The contention of the appeal relates to the public access and recreation policies and provisions of the Coastal Act and Malibu LCP and the shoreline protection policies of the Malibu LCP," the staff report states.
Zimmer and Brennan, in seeking a rehearing wrote in the appeal letter:
"The city's approved findings state that the proposed project has been sited and designed to not require a shoreline protective device and that this determination was made under the assumption of an unprotected beach (without the temporary rock revetment).
"However, the applicant is part of he Broad Beach GHAD hat has applied to the commission for a regular coastal development permit for the permanent authorization of this existing rock revetment.
"Thus in this case it is unclear whether the approved project has been designed to accommodate the maximum wave uprush and wave height limits to ensure future stability of he development.
"Issue is raised regarding the approved development's occupation of sandy beach by a structure and potential effects on shoreline sand supply which sustains public access opportunities in contradiction to public access opportunities and recreational opportunities."