Home in Big Rock Mesa landslide area gets planning commission OK

The project area is outlined in blue. Submitted photo/City of Malibu/Pictometry

Michele Willer-Allred, Staff Reporter – 9:20 am PST January 7, 2021 – Malibu Surfside News

A new single-family home proposed for a neighborhood in Malibu has been caught in the middle of a debate on whether any development should occur on property in the historic Big Rock Mesa landslide area.

The applicants for the 3,3792-square-foot, two-story dwelling in the 20200 block of Inland Lane succeeded Monday in getting the Planning Commission to vote 2-1 in favor of a Coastal Development Permit for the project, as well as a variance from the city’s geotechnical standards for factor of safety. That is, how the development affect the ground.

However, the vote — with Jeff Jennings and David Weil in favor, Chair John Mazza opposed — left some concerned that moving the project forward could lead to an increased potential of landslides onto Pacific Coast Highway.

After expressing concern for the project, Mazza added a friendly amendment to the approval, to which Jennings agreed.

“I do think it’s important that we monitor this project. We have a requirement to report to the city when it starts moving,” Mazza said.

In 1968, a 2,184-square-foot single-family home was constructed on the property, but the residence burned in the Malibu Topanga Fire and was demolished, leaving just the foundation.

The lot descends steeply to PCH, and the entire slope area was restricted as a geological hazard.

In 2012, the Planning Commission approved an application from a previous property owner to allow construction for a residence, but the property was subsequently sold.

Two years later, the Planning Commission approved a two-year time extension request for the approval.

The current property owner redesigned the project, which the Planning Commission in 2017 approved with a condition requiring an annual monitoring report.

After the commission’s decision was subsequently appealed and eventually upheld by the City Council, the California Coastal Commission staff recommended denial of the project because the CDP had expired.

The owner then withdrew the application and submitted a new one, which increased total development size by 455 square feet.

According to a city staff report, while the Big Rock Mesa Landslide Assessment District de-waters the landslide area to increase stability, “it is infeasible to rebuild a residence on the subject property in a fashion that would meet the code-required factors of safety.”

The report continued: “The measures available for residential construction on a single lot, such as deepened piles and other techniques, cannot increase the factor of safety sufficiently due to the fact that the landslide covers 160 acres in land area (and) is 350 feet thick at its deepest extent.”

City staff said that engineering studies for the project were reviewed and approved by the city’s geotechnical staff to include a set of complex site design and construction measures that would allow development of the project “that would not cause adverse site or structural stability impacts on the subject parcel or surrounding parcels.”

Norm Haynie, representing the applicant, said the new development would actually make the property safer because it would result in a net reduction of weight of approximately 700 tons on the site.

Fred Gaines, an attorney representing the applicant, said a no vote by the Planning Commission would result in the property owner “being denied of privileges being provided by others in the vicinity including the opponents themselves whose homes are all being maintained on this exact same geologic situation.”

More than 20 speakers both in favor and opposed to the project spoke during the four-hour Zoom meeting. Others had emailed their concerns to the commission, including the Friends of Big Rock, which submitted a petition demanding a moratorium on new development on the property, especially if it increases water inputs on the hill that is increasingly moving and unsafe.

Other residents said they were in favor of the project, and that opponents actually don’t want to see any new development in their neighborhood.

One finding commissioners had to make was that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare. Longtime Malibu geologist Don Michael said the location has a safety factor of 1.0, meaning that it’s actually on the verge of moving. He added that a safety factor of anything lower than 1.0 means actual movement.

Commissioner Jennings asked Michael if the proposed project makes the safety of surrounding properties better, worse, or no change?

“Worse,” responded Michael, adding, “In the face of it at this point, cracks in cul-de-sac pavement in Inland Lane strongly suggest movement.”

Changing the weight load on the site was irrelevant, Michael continued, because one would have to evaluate groundwater effect on the load, including from rain and any increase in the septic system in the area.

“It’s difficult in these Zoom meetings without the ability to diagram to help you understand the technical aspects of the question,” Michael said. “I strongly advise (the commission) to at least get some sort of written documentation asking us specific questions about your concerns.”

Mazza asked for the item to be continued based on his concern for the 1.0 safety factor.

“That in my opinion gives the city huge liabilities because we’re approving something that is moving,” he said. “I think this project should be continued until we get the evidence of the factor of safety.”

Jennings said while he’s sensitive to the issue of stability at Big Rock, a variance is necessary because there’s no way to stabilize any structure on the property to reach the required factor of safety because the entire area does not reach that factor of safety.

No development, Jennings added, amounts to a “taking” of the property by the city.

“The city can decide if it wants to buy this property. If it does, then I suspect when this property goes to appeal, the (council) can make that determination,” Jennings said.

Mazza countered, saying if city officials gives a variance on this or other properties, it will essentially be saying that they don’t care if it’s safe or not.

“That’s the very thing that cost Laguna (Beach) their budget for a whole year,” said Mazza. (On June 1, 2005, after a high winter rainfall, a landslide destroyed one Laguna Beach Beach neighborhood, destroying a dozen homes and damaging two dozen.) “It’s not a taking when a property is too dangerous to build on.”

Commission Co-chair Chris Marx expressed concern about conflicting views of geologists evaluating the same area.

“I’m not comfortable that we have enough information that we’re not being detrimental to the public interest, even though I do feel that there’s a lot of good work done here,” said Marx, who initially voted to oppose the variance.

Commission member Weil said the opinions of geologists will not make a difference, and that he didn’t believe the project was exacerbating the situation.

Assistant City Attorney Trevor Rusin suggested continuance of the matter to a future meeting until a new planning commissioner could be added to the dais. Newly-elected City Councilman Steve Uhring recently vacated his seat on the Planning Commission.

During the meeting, Haynie ended up talking with the property owners, who decided they wanted a decision by the Planning Commission rather than a continuance, because they also suspect the project was ultimately going to be appealed to the council.

Marx ended up abstaining to allow the vote of approval.