Malibu civic center project hits wave of controversy: property owners sue city over interim zoning ordinance.

Malibu's reputation as a fun-in-the-sun, Hollywood-by-the-sea enclave couldn't be further from the truth for many real estate developers and property owners there. The City Council is digging in its heels over future development, and its relationship with developers is strained and litigious.

The most divisive issue currently is the proposed development of Malibu's civic center area. A coalition of 17 property owners called the Malibu Village Civic Association proposed to offer the City Council four different development options for the 150 acres they collectively own in the civic center area. Their vision was for a pedestrian village with a combination of retail, residential and new civic buildings.

However, the coalition abandoned all those plans after spending $1 million on the effort over the last two years. The coalition said it abandoned its civic center effort because the City Council rejected an "economically feasible" caveat that the coalition wanted included in any plan the council would adopt.

The property owners are now suing the city -- challenging the council on its adoption of an interim zoning ordinance which effectively downzoned the civic center area.

Specifically, the coalition alleges the city violated California and federal environmental laws by adopting the interim zoning ordinance without first conducting adequate environmental impact studies.

The interim ordinance prohibits new multi-family dwelling development, and the property owners are saying this would have a major negative environmental impact on the community.

John Perenchio, a principal in the Malibu Bay Co., the largest property owner in Malibu, said, "By not allowing lower- and middle-income people who work in Malibu a chance to live here, you are creating a negative environmental impact for the entire region because more people are having to commute here."

"It doesn't appear that the City Council is ready to work cooperatively with the business community and face the fiscal responsibilities inherent in cityhood," Perenchio said.

Comments of this sort are not exactly sitting well with the five-member City Council. The lawsuit has only made the council more determined to prevent a proliferation of what some council members and residents say is ugly ramshackle commercial development that runs along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor in Malibu.

The City of Malibu was incorporated four years ago and does not yet have a "general plan" that will specify the parameters for building densities and architectural details (i.e. height restrictions) on future developments.

The disputed interim ordinance was adopted by the council to provide temporary development guidelines until the more-permanent general plan could be adopted.

The general plan is scheduled to soon be considered by the council, then it will have to stand up to scrutiny from both the Coastal Commission and California Water Board.

The civic center property owners were offering specific options for development of the civic center area. But until a general plan is approved, the council is hesitant to act on their proposals in earnest, Councilman Walt Keller said. Keller further said that many major Malibu developments in the past have backfired because they failed to take into account the city's special geographical and geologic problems. For example, a major watershed runs through the community, and 60 acres of the civic center area sits in a flood plain. Keller said, "There is not adequate drainage, and after the big rains, it (rainwater) was running off into the Malibu Colony from our new shopping center. It got so bad, (actor and Malibu resident) Burgess Meredith had to climb over a wall to escape the flooding in his house."

Malibu Mayor Carolyn Van Horn commented, "It's never good to go ahead and file a lawsuit if you can work something out. It creates bad feelings. I have been living here for 17 years, and my sense is people who are living here don't come out here to be consumers. It's a rural community, and we must find out what is sustainable and what's healthy for the community. People come out here to get away from the pavement."

Councilman Keller said that Larry Kosmont, a real estate consultant hired by the Malibu Village Civic Association, has made the situation worse by his "shouting at City Council meetings."

Keller further said, "These developers are jumping the gun. We don't have a general plan in place yet, and they are trying to convince the community that we need a high-density residential project with 800 homes and condominiums. Traffic congestion is a big concern and I don't think they have convinced the community that this is what Malibu needs."

Kosmont, who characterized Keller as the council member least responsive to his client's development plans, said the property owners will now approach the city individually with development applications for their individual properties, rather than jointly pursuing a master plan tying in the entire 150-acre civic center area.

The master plan they had been proposing called for a pedestrian village with a mix of retail and residential uses, and underground parking. The project would have included a new city hall and civic center, with a three-acre park and clock tower.

Kosmont said, "We had a cohesive, well-thought-out plan to develop the city's infrastructure that has become commonplace in California government. There has been similar public-private planning in Santa Barbara, Burbank and in Santa Monica. But here (in Malibu), we seem to have a government dominated by no-growthers. They have the fundamental attitude of, 'Not in my backyard.' And it's hard to get developers to put up millions of dollars when they know what the backdrop here is."

Down the coast, in Santa Monica, plans for a new civic center there have also drummed up a hornet's nest of controversy. Although a specific plan has been approved by the Santa Monica City Council, a citizen's group has gathered enough signatures to put the plan to a vote by the Santa Monica electorate.

State Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Santa Monica, has been leading the fight against the new civic center because he believes it would bring too much additional traffic to the area. The Santa Monica plan calls for a new police department headquarters, 350 new housing units, a 12-acre park and a renovation/expansion of Rand Corp.'s headquarters facilities.

Rand has gone on the offensive in its support of the plan, having printed up and distributed flyers in a campaign to convince people who have signed the petitions to remove their names. If the petitions are qualified as legitimate, a vote would come either in a special election or on the June ballot.