Public Safety Succumbs to Parking and Politics

Aired July 18, KBU.FM. More Local Concerns

Why do Malibu residents find City Hall so exasperating?

Here it is, several weeks into the Summer, and Grasswood Avenue on Point Dume is very much a parking lot on beach beckoning days, impassable for emergency vehicles, to the consternation of first responders, and difficult for residents.

It has been several months since a gaggle of Grasswood residents went before the city’s Public Safety Commission, asking that something, anything, be done. The item was duly placed on its agenda; the commission took testimony –noting that it was the largest turnout in memory –and directed the city to come up with several alternatives.

The city came back with a proposal to stripe the street to allow for through traffic, confining parking to the edges where possible. It was approved. The residents placated.

Then came the poison pill. Heeding the concerns of ever-cautious councilperson Laura Rosenthal, the city manager, Jim Thorsen, said that before implementing the improvement, a consenting petition was needed from a majority of the street’s residents. For a public safety measure? That already was unanimously approved?

Some 20 years ago when riding a bike to the Pt. Dume elementary school a students was almost killed by a speeding car at Fernhill and Sea Ranch Way. I recall it took a week or so to get a stop sign erected at the intersection. Other public safety initiatives also have not required a consensus. Indeed, the city’s charter is prefaced by the paramount concern for the “health, safety and welfare” of residents.

Rosenthal had raised the concern that the parking improvements would provoke the wrath of a contentious Coastal Commission who embraces the parking as an enhancement to beach access. However, its establishing statue, Coastal Act, Section 30210, clearly states “maximum access shall be provided consistent with public safety needs.”

It was suggested that the parking constraints should nevertheless be implemented, at least for the Summer, and then weigh the reaction, if any. But City Hall prevailed.

And so a conscientious resident subsequently hosted a meeting to air the issue and garner signatures. The turnout was decent, about two dozen. Some signed, some balked, and some talked, and talked.

The question of whether enough signatures were gathered, and what indeed constitutes enough, was not made clear by the city. The city manager has not answered several queries.

Meanwhile, it has been four months since the residents went before the Public Safety Commission, two months since the constraints were approved, several weeks since the community gathering, and the parking problem on Grasswood persists.

So much for the prime principle of democratic institutions, that they deliver results. It is no wonder that the Malibu City Council meetings are becoming more and more contentious.

This is a slightly edited commentary was aired on 97.5 KBU on July 18.

 

 

 

 

Will Saving The Trees Save Malibu?

aired 6.17

It seems as long as I can remember in my two decades as a concerned citizen of misanthropic Malibu, the coastal city is at a crossroads, literally and figuratively.

The crossroads physically is at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway –the PCH –and Cross Creek Road, in what is euphemistically called the Malibu Civic Center. In reality, however, it’s really a clutter of scattered suburban mini malls, the civic element consisting, of an uninviting park, with an isolated library and city hall on its fringe. All have their adjacent segregated parking.

The crossroads in question is not incidentally an accident magnet, marked by a Shell station on the northeast corner, and the south side by a cluster of tall trees, a venerable Sycamore and five Eucalyptus.

Before the city’s Planning Commission the other evening was a plan to upgrade the crossroads, a so-called mitigation to satisfy a condition of approval for a commercial center the city green lighted way back in 2008. Approval of the mitigation would finally put a bow on the elaborate 112,000 square foot package, known as La Paz.

Many in the growing cadre of anti development forces across Malibu thought if the trees could be saved, the mitigation would fail, and therefore project stopped. Not so, contended the developer’s rep, who said he also loved the trees, but try and try again to get Caltrans to agree to an alternative failed.

If anything distinguishes Malibu residents, is that they have seldom heard or heeded the word no. do not They testified for three hours to save the trees, which they saw as a rare icon for a city “and repeatedly quoted from its land use plan the historical willingness of residents “to sacrifice urban and suburban conveniences in order to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics;”

This resonated with the commission, which came up with it thought is a Solomon–like decision. It approved the mitigation needed for public safety, but with an amendment to somehow save the trees. A Caltrans functionary there was typically evasive.

The commission in its decision suggested several modification that could be explored, including narrowing the lanes, taking a slice off the shell by relocating or eliminating one bank of pumps.

Let me add that this could be viable, if Shell was confronted with the alternative of losing all to eminent domain.

Putting on my planner’s hat, let me further suggest that PCH from the bridge over Malibu Creek to Webb way can be treated as a downtown Main Street, such as it is Laguna Beach, Corona Del Mar among other coastal towns. With speed limits lowered from the present 45 to 25, and cross walks and sidewalks lit, Legacy Park edged to become more inviting, among other improvements, the scene also could lend itself to a more amendable civic identity.

Also raised at the commission was the question why was the city not taking more initiative in exploring alternatives and lobbying for them with Cal trans; why in these cases why the city also seems to be yielding to the applicant and their lobbyists.

This question places the city at a figurative crossroads. Will the city council with and the city bureaucracy step up and become proactive and less timorous in the fulfilling its obligations, particularly in the wake of a more demanding electorate? The passage of measure R certainly was a message that all is not well in Malibu. So was the commission hearing Monday night.

Ever Desirable and Threatened Malibu

Aired 6.13.15

Today, its my ever real estate desirable Malibu, where the planning commission and council are under pressure pondering the future of the civic center.

As the heat of the summer builds, and the heat of development bubbles , focus is on two proposed projects: a whole foods market and shops sweetened by a park, and the second, a commercial cluster that actually was approved by the city in 2008, but still must resolve some environmental issues.

Whatever, we can expect these developments will be with us for some time, tied up by appeals and law suits.

Meanwhile, a citizens task force is completing a draft of design guidelines for new commercial development, which most likely will recommend further study, on a broader plan , to weave a more attractive and accessible center, for residents as well as tourists.

But this continuing debate over the civic center can be distracting, for Malibu, after all, is primarily a residential community, which to be sure is also under development pressure, one project at a time. And this being a desired address for the deep pocket crowd, where big is considered better, the projects sadly are often egregious.

I feel they are compromising Malibu as much as the excessive commercial.

Consider the proposal of 29042 Cliffside Dr to be aired before the planning commission Monday. It takes a bad faux Mediterranean style house and attempts to convert it to a bad faux modernist structure.

From my perspective as an architecture critic, the design looks cheap.

I also feel the indicated construction of 49% is a blatant attempt to have the project declared a remodel and not a new structure, with its additional reviews and fees. The result is what I would label a macmansion .

However, my prime objection is based on my experience as the past chair of the city”s View Preservation Task Force, and from years as a planning consultant, to private corporations and public agencies.

I fear that if this application is approved, and however it compromises the blue water view of any neighboring property, it will also clearly affect their property values. That in turn will constitute what is known in planning as a taking; the taking away of value from one party to benefit another. This could be the basis for a costly law suit against the city.

My view is not affected, but if those of my neighbors are, and with the result of lowering their property values, mine also would be affected, and also that of all Malibu. Macmansions are a plague to be avoided. Tune in next week for the results

Im Sam Hall Kaplan, on 97.5 KBU and Radio Malibu, dot com.

 

The Promise of the L.A. River

Aired 5.30. 2015

Today, some thoughts on the perennial potential of the L.A. River.

Prompting me was attending a recent workshop under the banner of Yale’s annual Day of Service, which had gathered a well-intentioned gaggle of talents to brainstorm an arts project to grace the river.

Orchestrated by Elaine Rene Weisman, an architect who has been involved in several River related projects, and aided by Esther Margulies, the river’s fractured past, and present problems and promise, were put into perspective.

Several loosely defined art projects and venues were suggested, and are to be further explored, with eventually one selected bearing the imprimatur of Yale, to be sited, designed and funded.

If the river generates anything, it is the hope that such efforts can be pursued, individually, with each its own advocates, and in time be strung together to become the region’s focal point it once was when it attracted settlers to the Southland some 250 years ago.

To be sure, there is an ambitious plan for the 51-mile waterway slicing through a multitude of municipalities. Displayed is the promise of promenades, bike paths, pedestrian bridges and so called “opportunity areas” for convenient food stands and much needed housing.

The renderings are engaging, as is the plan and other pronouncements from the usual think tank sinecures.

But given the region’s fractious political history, the plan cannot be considered more than a long range blueprint. We are talking here 50 years or so implementing a variety of comprehensive improvements to make the River a prized regional resource.

And no one seems to know exactly where, when and how the needed funds will be forthcoming, beginning with the one billion dollars plus promised by the federal government.

As for Los Angeles stepping up to the plate, as those with institutional memories remind us, the city is notoriously long on promises, and short on delivery, particularly under term limits where politicians play musical chairs and toot their horns, while projects languish.

That is why most of us long time River advocates are looking with humble hope to individual projects such as the Yale initiative.

And personally, I like small public projects, spaces and places that are comfortable, clean and safe, where you can also if need be keep an eye on the kids.

I’m Sam Hall Kaplan, and this is the city observed, heard on KBU 97.5 fm, and streaming everywhere.

 

It’s the traffic, Jake, not the architecture.

Today,, the topic is traffic, a fact of life on the constant minds of people who drive anywhere in Southern California, and that is most people.

And traffic also above all is the tail that wags the development dog, the bottom line in those endless neighborhood battles, be it in a city or suburb.

Forget design and architecture, it is what how much traffic will be generated by whatever project is proposed, not how it is going to look and how it might serve the users and their community settings.

That is certainly the case in my misanthropic Malibu, whose major artery, its main street, is the Pacific Coast Highway.

Known locally as the PCH, it is basically a single road leading into and out of, and through, the 21 mile, one mile wide city, edged by the ocean to the west, and the Santa Monica mountains to the east.

Think of the traffic as too much tooth paste in a constricted tube labeled Malibu.

That wouldn’t be too bad if the PCH served just the city’s 13,000 residents, but an estimated 80,000 vehicles pass through it daily, most to and from a burgeoning City of Santa Monica to the south, and the sprawling L.A. basin beyond.

And on sunny summer weekends the area’s storied coast attracts some 300,000 more-when the sandy beaches beckon – the traffic and the parking be damned.

The result is gridlock, aggravated by at least a major accident a day, more on holidays., including an inordinate number of fatalities.

Most Malibu residents generally stay at home on weekends, avoiding the PCH like a plague.

The PCH is the bane of Malibu; unquestionably the number one complaint of residents, and visitors, too, a dark cloud in an otherwise bright real estate heaven.

The accidents, the gridlock and the general miserable driving conditions spurred increasingly shrill complaints of residents,, which in turn prompted the city aided by state and federal funding, to order a major study to see what could be done to make the PCH safer, and smooth the flow of traffic.

After several years of site specific engineering, the study is now complete. It is an exacting nearly 900 page document that fine tunes almost every foot of the PCH.

Recommended are some 150 improvements with a total cost of 20 million dollar plus, and includes. synchronized traffic signals, realigning several intersections, actually narrowing some sections of the road, while widening others, a median, an underpass , bolder stripping and host of fixes to aid pedestrians.

These were designed with the community in mind, so states the logo of the prime consultant team of Stantec.

But unfortunately the report is not easily accessible or digestible for the public. These projects usually are not revealed until the warning signs go up overnight. So much for government transparency.

Indeed, the combined public works and safety commissions met the other night in a nearly empty City Hall to blink at the study before sending it on to the City Council, which will have to act on it pronto to get under a July First funding deadline.

PCH undoubtedly will be safer, and traffic facilitated, That is good. But don’t expect it will offer much relief.

Improving roadways almost always generates more traffic; traffic being like water, flowing downhill, to find its way into the most conducive channel. And in Malibu the PCH is the one and only channel

If Malibu is a piece of heaven on earth, as its residents contend, then the PCH has to be its hell. No place is perfect.

Im Sam Hall Kaplan, and this is the City Observed, on 97.5 KBU FM, radio Malibu.net

aired 5.24.15

 

 

 

 

It Takes A Village to Make A Civic Center

Musings on the design of Malibu’s embattled civic center, with cautious lessons for other cities searching for a community focal point.

At present, Malibu’s civic center is less a focus for the area’s desirable sea coast real estate, and more of a scattered collection of suburban mini malls.

It is also a battleground for a continuing shrill debate over its development, whether high end chain stores for deep pockets tourists and transient owners of beach front trophy houses, or more modest retail for the city’s grounded residents.

This conflict prompted the recent approval by voters of an ordinance with the intent of constricting large developments, but if anything has just further entangled the planning process, to the delight of lawyers.

Sitting in this stormy sea seemingly like a boat without a paddle is Malibu’s City Council, at the whim of hot winds.

As in the past, the council has attempted to deflect the controversy by appointing a citizens task force, and hiring consultants to guide it.

From my perspective, the problem is that it has limited the effort to drafting design standards for the future development of the civic center. Essentially, how it should look. Nice, but no cigars.

What is obviously needed is a so-called specific plan for the civic center– to guide what should be built there.

The result is that the task force, composed of several respected professionals and lead by a particularly enlightened consultant team, have been in effect – to use a popular planning adage – rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

So, at the last meeting of the task force, much of the discussion was taken up by miniature and semantics, such as, a description of Malibu as a rural seacoast village.

Whatever, it gave me an opportunity at the meeting to comment, that if the civic center is truly to become a viable village, a village of people, it needs mixed use housing . In particular, affordable housing to cater to its school teachers, first responders, seniors and the local work force.

This housing would have many benefits, including reducing traffic on the PCH –residential generates half of what commercial does.

It also would more than satisfy Malibu’s affordable housing element required by the State. It certainly would please the Coastal Commission, and make it look more kindly on the city.

But most of all, it is the right thing to do. We owe it to those who serve us.

This essay was broadcast on 97.5 KBU.FM.