Malibu council remands West Sea Level Drive coastal development appeal to planning commission

The Malibu City Council voted to remand to the planning commission an appeal over a coastal development permit for a proposed residence at 31864 West Sea Level Drive, after lengthy public hearings and arguments about required setbacks from an adjacent stream and the scope of allowable development in an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA).

The permit application would allow a two‑story, three‑bedroom residence and an on‑site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) to be built inside the 100‑foot ESHA buffer. Planning staff and the project’s opponents told council that the project had not been sited “to the maximum extent feasible” away from the stream, a statutory requirement in the city’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The applicant’s representatives argued that engineered treatments and a reconfigured dispersal field would prevent measurable harm to water quality and habitat.

Why it matters: The council’s remand keeps the project in the planning review pipeline rather than ending the dispute with a council-level approval or denial. Council members described competing priorities: enforcing the LIP’s protective standards for stream habitat while allowing reasonable use of legally created building lots. The outcome preserves a path for the project to be modified and reviewed again at the planning commission and leaves the prospect of further appeals to the Coastal Commission or courts if either side remains unsatisfied.

Council deliberations focused on two distinct legal questions that the LIP requires planners and decision makers to answer separately: (1) whether there is any feasible alternative siting that would place the residence further from the ESHA, and (2) whether the design “minimizes impacts to ESHA on and adjacent to the property to the maximum extent feasible.” Planning staff and the city biologist repeatedly concluded in earlier reports — and again in the planning commission hearings — that alternatives existed (including reconfiguring the OWTS or reducing project size) that would increase setbacks and reduce encroachment. The planning commission nevertheless voted to approve the permit; council members who urged remand faulted that approval for not following staff’s earlier analysis.

The applicant’s attorney, Don Schmitz, said the proposed OWTS is a tertiary system with ultraviolet disinfection and other safeguards and that a reconfigured leach/dispersal field could already be shown in project alternatives to increase the setback. Appellant Pat Healy and other neighbors argued the project remains too large and too close to riparian habitat and that approvals would set a precedent for similar development on adjacent vacant lots, compounding impacts.

Action: After extended debate the council rejected a proposal to approve the permit with an added condition requiring the OWTS dispersal field be moved about five feet farther from the stream. That motion failed. A subsequent motion to remand the file to the planning commission for reconsideration (including review of alternatives to increase setbacks and other mitigation) passed 4–1. The project remains subject to future planning commission review; any future council or commission action could be appealed to the California Coastal Commission or to court.

What’s next: The planning commission will receive the matter again and staff said it will work with the applicant to identify whether feasible siting alternatives and reduced development-area configurations (for example smaller footprint or reconfigured dispersal fields) would satisfy the LIP tests. If the applicant and neighbors cannot reach an agreement, the planning commission’s later decision could return to council or be appealed externally.