Views of identified scenic resources from public viewing areas such as PCH, the beach, the Pacific Ocean, and Malibu Pier, would not be altered by project implementation.
Although the onsite slope is sparsely vegetated, supporting primarily non-native grassland, and weedy vegetation, efforts to preserve the aesthetic of the slope would be implemented by the Project, including utilizing drought-tolerant plant species in Project landscaping and the use of earth-tone colors and materials.
As designed, the Project complies with the requirements of both the MMC and LCP. In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative Project would offer any environmental advantages.
2. Commercial Retail. A new commercial plaza providing 7,713 gross square feet of floor area between two buildings and 82 surface and subterranean parking spaces was the original project for the Project Site. The former project also included a retaining wall of up to 62 feet, 2 inches in height above finished grade (with a total height of 77 feet, 5 inches above the bottom of the subterranean parking level). The former project included two buildings with a two-story building and subterranean garage in the same location of the Project. However, the exposed portion of the proposed retaining wall is shorter, and the motel building will obstruct more of the wall with vegetation which will help screen it.
Therefore, even though the projects are similar, the impacts of the Project would be even less significant compared to the former project.
3. Proposed Project. The motel would consist of a single building oriented parallel to PCH and separated from PCH by a surface parking lot and driveway aisle. The building would be set back approximately 61 feet from PCH and provide 7,693 square feet of occupied motel space. The building would include 20 lodging units, a rooftop deck with a pool, spa and bar area, and a single level of subterranean parking with an optional stacked parking system (i.e., auto lifts) to provide added spaces beyond those required under the MMC.
The building setbacks are designed to be compliant with the LCP’s development standards. The Project’s architectural design incorporates the following items intended to minimize visual impacts: earth-tone colors similar to the surrounding environment; limited height to not exceed that of nearby buildings; perimeter and internal drought resistant landscaping; retaining wall with textured materials, partially screened by the structure and landscaping; parking partially screened from public view through the use of frontage landscaping and building design (subterranean); and the building would consist of tiered floors, ascending away from PCH at approximately the natural grade of the nearby slope.
The building’s exterior architectural finishes fronting PCH would be comprised of non-glare windows, glass paneled railings, and wood siding and paneling.
The Project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s commercial development policies of the LCP and MMC. The Project as conditioned will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law. The Project has been determined not to 127
result in adverse biological, scenic or visual resource impacts, and is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
Finding 4. If the Project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.
The Project Site is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. However, due to the preparation of an IS/MND the former Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project, was reviewed by the ERB. The Project is similar to the former project but has a retaining wall that is shorter as measured from finished grade and will be screened with vegetation and the proposed motel building. Therefore, the Project did not need to be reviewed by ERB. ERB’s recommendation for replacing the proposed California Sycamore trees with Toyon trees was suggested due to a concern that the Sycamore’s root system has a potential for damaging the adjacent sidewalk. The owner instead agreed to a condition to include a barrier encircling root ball for each of the Sycamore trees and therefore, would meet the intent of ERB’s recommendation by minimizing the potential for sidewalk damage.
B. Variance for Retaining Wall in Excess of 12 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.26) A variance is proposed to allow construction of the development of a retaining wall that is an integral part of the motel building in excess of 12 feet in height. LIP Section 13.26.5 requires that the City makes ten findings in consideration and approval of a variance.
Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 18-031 are made as follows:
Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
The proposed development requires the construction of a retaining wall at the rear (north side) of the motel building. The retaining wall would be constructed to secure the graded slope following the excavation and to provide a 15-foot structural setback from the slope.
The project structural engineer provided a statement and exhibit showing the required horizontal 15-foot structural setback from the slope (Attachment 11). The retaining wall is 21 feet, 10 inches in height above finished grade. The retaining wall would extend below finished grade to accommodate the subterranean parking level and provide for an adequate foundation.
128
The applicant provided other examples of similar retaining walls within the same commercial corridor (Attachment 12). The PC Greens shopping center was constructed with a 15-foot-tall retaining wall surfacing above the rooftop parking lot. The original office buildings which will be repurposed for the Sea View Hotel were constructed with a 21-foottall retaining wall daylighting above the lower level. The Malibu Vista at Carbon Beach is another office building constructed with a 26-foot-tall retaining wall. All of these buildings are located on the landside of PCH and were built into the hillside similar to the proposed motel.
Up to 11 feet, 10 inches of the proposed retaining wall projects above the rooftop deck and is visible. From a line-of-sight, only a small portion of the wall will be visible above the proposed motel from PCH. The use of earth-tones, faux-rock, and landscaping would be implemented to soften the wall’s appearance. This is also similar to the other nearby development with similar retaining walls. Most of the retaining wall behind the PC Greens shopping center is entirely obstructed by the building even though the retaining wall projects 15 feet in height above the building rooftop.
The wall will be visually obstructed by the motel building and elevator shaft, and an approximately 180-foot-wide terrace that would obstruct approximately half of the retaining wall. The wall will also be screened from view by proposed landscaping and roof deck elements. Giant Bird of Paradise, which is a plant that can reach a height of 20 feet and the clumps of long stalks can spread as far as 11 feet, are proposed to be planted in front of the retaining wall with the intent of visually screening the portions of the retaining wall above the roofline of the motel building. The retaining wall would be cladded with earthtone, faux-rock to mimic and blend with the natural hillside where visible through the proposed vegetation.
The retaining wall is integral to the Project: it is integrated as part of the building to create the subterranean parking; it is required to create a level building area for the motel building, subterranean parking level, and the at-grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH; and it is essential for securing the excavation of the steep slope to accommodate the structure.
Therefore, commercial development on the Project Site would not be feasible without granting a variance for retaining wall height in excess of 12 feet. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning classification and site constraints.
Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.
The proposed variance will allow construction of a motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or 129
welfare. Furthermore, the Project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.
Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.
As previously stated, other nearby commercial development has been constructed with similar retaining walls, which support the toe of the slope. The site’s topography is predominantly characterized by a steep slope. There is no alternative development pad on the Project Site that would avoid excavation into the steep slope and the resulting retaining wall to secure the excavation. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would prohibit commercial development on the Project Site. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV-1 zoning district. The proposed variance would not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner in that there are other examples of similar retaining walls constructed for nearby development and, without the variance, a commercial development on the property would not be feasible.
Finding 4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.
The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are allowed in the CV-1 zoning district. As previously stated, with the inclusion of the variance, the Project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.
Finding 5. For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible alternative for siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.
The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
Finding 6. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP. 130
The requested variance is not associated with stringline standards. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
Finding 7. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located. A variance shall not be granted for a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.
The variance request is to allow for the construction of a retaining wall that exceeds 12 feet in height to allow for the development of the proposed motel in the CV-1 zoning district.
Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site.
Finding 8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site, however, construction of the proposed retaining wall in excess of 12 feet in height cannot be avoided. As stated previously, the proposed retaining wall is a building code requirement to maintain a horizontal structural setback to the toe of the slope. The proposed retaining wall is necessary for any new building on the subject parcel. In addition, the Project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability, and determined that the Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
Finding 9. The variance complies with all requirements of State and local law.
The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.
Finding 10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.
The Project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
131
C. Variance for Construction for Surface Parking within the Required Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.26)
A variance is proposed to permit surface parking within the required front yard setback.
Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 20-035 are made as follows.
Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
LIP Section 3.8(A)(2)(a) requires that the front yard setback be at least 20 percent of the total lot depth, or 47 feet, 5 inches for the Project Site. LIP Section 3.14.5(A)(2) provides that required parking spaces may only be located in interior side and rear setbacks, and no parking space for a commercial use, required or otherwise, shall be located in any required front or street-side setback area, unless regulations provide otherwise.
Special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel consists of the steep slope that occupies the northern 70 percent of the Project Site.
Without allowing the required parking within the front yard setback, there would not be sufficient space to site required parking. A subterranean parking level is proposed, which can accommodate 29 parking spaces. The remaining 18 spaces are provided in the at grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH, which is located in the front yard setback.
With a few exceptions, almost all existing commercial development along this stretch of PCH has parking within the required front yard setback. Among these commercial developed properties are the Malibu Surfrider Motel, Jack in the Box, Malibu Inn, Chabad of Malibu, H.D. Roy Building and V’s Restaurant. Most of these properties have similar site constraints.
The proposed variance would allow for the parking required for the use to be provided onsite as required by the LCP. Due to these special circumstances and exceptional characteristics, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.
The proposed variance will allow construction of a motel in compliance with the minimum required parking spaces. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental 132
factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare. Furthermore, the Project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.
Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.
As previously stated, almost all other commercial development on this stretch of PCH is developed with parking within the required front yard setback. The site’s topography is predominantly characterized by a steep slope, limiting the area of development. There is no alternative development pad on the property that would avoid encroachment of the required parking in the front yard setback. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would prohibit commercial development on the Project Site. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV-1 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner as it is consistent with other surrounding development subject to similar site constraints.
Finding 4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.
The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are allowed in the CV-1 zoning district. As previously stated, with the inclusion of the variance, the Project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of the LIP, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.
Finding 5. For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible alternative for siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.
The requested variance is not associated with ESHA standards. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
Finding 6. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP. 133
The requested variance is not associated with stringline standards. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
Finding 7. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located. A variance shall not be granted for a use or activity, which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.
The proposed uses are consistent with the allowed uses in the applicable CV-1 zoning district. The proposed variance would not authorize an unpermitted use or activity.
Finding 8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is utilizing the disturbed portion of the subject site, however, locating the surface parking lot within the front yard setback cannot be avoided. There is already an existing surface parking lot located within the front yard setback. Due to the steep slope to the north of the parking lot, there was no other location that the parking lot could be constructed without encroaching into the front yard setback. The existing parking lot has no direct access from PCH and is accessed via a driveway aisle through the Aviation Nation Site. The Project Site is currently sparsely vegetated and provides no landscaping along the frontage with PCH.
The proposed development includes using an existing driveway on PCH at the eastern edge of the Project Site for direct access to the Project Site, which will improve access to the Project Site. The existing driveways at the adjacent Aviation Nation Site, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the Project Site from the west. The Aviation Nation Site also is developed with a surface parking lot within the front yard setback. Since the Project Site will continue to provide shared parking to the Aviation Nation Site, an internal access is provided and the surface parking lots will remain connected so that shared parking operations do not require entering PCH. The Project Site is designed with throughput access from PCH to the Aviation Nation Site parking lot, negating any need for vehicles to turnaround. The surface parking lot would also be partially screened from view from PCH through the use of frontage landscaping along PCH. Landscaped planter strips would also be installed along pedestrian walkways and roadways throughout the Project Site.
In addition, the Project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability, and determined that the Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
Finding 9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.
The City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD reviewed the Project and 134
determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Therefore, the Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.
Finding 10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.
The Project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
D. Site Plan Review for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section
13.27.5)
LIP Section 13.27.5(A) requires that the City makes four findings in the consideration and approval of a site plan review for construction in excess of the City’s base 18 feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet with a flat roof. Two additional findings are required pursuant to MMC Section 17.62.060. Based on the evidence in the record, the findings of fact for SPR No. 18-025 are made as follows:
Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.
The Project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigation, the Project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.
Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.
The Project would alter the visual appearance of the Project Site but would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the Project Site or introduce any aesthetic elements incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and the height of the proposed building has been limited to minimize impacts to visual character. The Project Site is buffered from surrounding residential areas by open space and the incorporation of additional landscaping. The design of the proposed building would also serve as a barrier that reduces noise transmission, as patios would face away from residential areas and the building would contain some vehicle noise within the subterranean parking garage. The Project does not propose amplified sound (music, concerts, etc.).
Surrounding development includes commercial buildings, visitor-serving attractions, and single-family residences atop the slope roughly 190 feet above the Project Site. The Project Site is bordered on the west and east by commercial land uses, including the Aviation Nation Site to the west, and a single-story commercial building containing Chabad of Malibu preschool and the Traveler Surf Club and Coastal Outpost to the east. The Malibu Plaza, a contemporary three-story commercial mixed-use building, is located 175 feet east of the Project Site, adjacent to the north side of PCH and east of the Malibu Surf Shack.
135
Notable public viewing locations with views of the Project Site are limited to PCH and Malibu Pier located across PCH from the Project Site. From these locations, the view of the coastline towards the Project Site along the PCH corridor includes the steep slope fronted by one- to two-story commercial buildings and parking lots and residential uses along the shoreline. Due to elevation differences such as the higher elevation of PCH, the Project Site is only minimally visible from the public beaches.
Photo simulations to show the design and scale of the proposed development from three vantage points were submitted instead of story poles (Attachment 4 – Photo Simulations).
As demonstrated in the photo simulations, due to the size, shape, and topography of the lot, the proposed development will blend into the hillside, will be minimally visible from public viewing areas or scenic roads, and is not located within primary views of neighboring properties. Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, and the standard conditions associated with applicable projects to minimize impacts to aesthetic resources, including incorporating colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape, the Project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment. Therefore, the portion of the commercial building in excess of 18 feet is not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.
Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP.
As discussed in Finding 2, as evident from the story poles, and the Project as conditioned, is designed provide maximum feasible protection to significant public views Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.
The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.
Finding 5. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
The Project is located in the CV-1 zoning district, an area designated for rural commercial uses. The proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV land use designation and CV-1 zoning district in which the Project Site is located. The proposed motel use complies with the intent of the zoning provisions of the MMC and the LCP. 136
The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the MMC and the LCP, inclusive of the VARs and SPR.
Finding 6. The portion of the project that is in excess of 18 feet in height does not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17).
The proposed development is not expected to obstruct visually impressive scenes from private property as all nearby residences have views oriented away from the subject property. This analysis is based on aerial photographs, site visits, photo simulations and story pole placement.
E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Therefore, the findings of LIP Section 4.7.6 do not apply.
F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
There are no native trees on or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the findings contained in LIP Chapter 5 do not apply.
G. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area.
LUP Policy 6.4 states that scenic areas do not include inland areas along PCH east of Malibu Canyon Road. No unique rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the Project Site. The Malibu Pier and adjacent beaches would be considered public viewing areas under the LCP, although due to elevation differences such as the higher elevation of PCH, the Project Site is only minimally visible from the public beaches.
The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use 137
is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. Since the Project is within an inland area that is largely developed or build out with existing commercial development along PCH, east of Malibu Canyon Road, the findings set forth in LIP Section 6.4 do not apply.
H. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
The Project does not include a land division or multi-family development. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 do not apply.
I. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the Project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity.
The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD.
The required findings are made as follows:
Finding 1. The Project, as proposed will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to Project design, location on the site or other reasons.
The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports and addenda prepared by GeoConcepts, Inc., dated June 4, 2003, November 3, 2009, February 27, 2012, April 27, 2012, June 27, 2012, December 4, 2014, February 26, 2015, May 29, 2015, June 16, 2015, September 21, 2015, April 28, 2016, October 16, 2018 and June 20, 2018, and EnSitu Engineering, Inc., dated September 12, 2014, March 3, 2015, February 25, 2016 and February 21, 2019. All reports are on file at City Hall. In these reports, site-specific conditions are evaluated, and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. Potential geologic hazards analyzed include geologic, seismic, and fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, groundwater, tsunami, and flood hazards. Based on review of the project plans and associated reports by City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the Project Site related to the proposed development as designed and conditioned are not expected.
The Project, as conditioned, incorporates all recommendations contained in the above cited reports and conditions required by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City 138
Public Works Department and the LACFD, including foundations and drainage. The Project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the Project Site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards.
Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards.
The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an adverse impact on wildfire hazards. The proposed development may actually decrease the site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials will be utilized during construction.
The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the Project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the Project Site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.
Finding 2. The Project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required Project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
As stated in Finding 1, the Project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to Project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
Finding 3. The Project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
As previously stated in LIP Findings, Section A, the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
Finding 4. There are no alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.
The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD.
These specialists and agency determined that the Project does not impact site stability or 139
structural integrity. As previously discussed in Section A, there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would result in less site disturbance.
Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified Malibu LCP.
As previously discussed in LIP Findings, Section A, the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.
J. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
LIP Chapter 10 applies to land that is located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff-top fronting the shoreline. The Project is not located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff-top fronting the shoreline. Therefore, the findings contained in LIP Chapter 10 do not apply.
K. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
LIP Section 12.4 requires public access for lateral, bluff-top, and vertical access near the ocean, trails, and recreational access for the following cases:
A. New development on any parcel or location specifically identified in the Land Use Plan or in the LCP zoning districts as appropriate for or containing a historically used or suitable public access trail or pathway.
B. New development between the nearest public roadway and the sea.
C. New development on any site where there is substantial evidence of a public right of access to or along the sea or public tidelands, a blufftop trail or an inland trail acquired through use or a public right of access through legislative authorization.
D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, Project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.
The Project does not meet any of the criteria above. Furthermore, no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the requirement for public access of LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.
L. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
The Project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings in LIP Chapter 15 do not apply.
140
M. Conditional Use Permit for New Motel Use and Sale of Alcohol (MMC Section
17.66.080)
The Planning Commission may approve, deny and/or modify an amendment to a CUP in whole or in part, with or without conditions, provided that it makes all of the findings of fact required by MMC Section 17.66.080. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 18-002 for a new motel, with associated uses, in the CV-1 zoning district.
The CUP, as recommended, can be supported based on the findings below:
Finding 1. The proposed use is one that is conditionally permitted within the subject zone and complies with the intent of all of the applicable provisions of Title 17 of the Malibu Municipal Code.
The Project Site is zoned for commercial use, and the proposed motel use is a conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district and is consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity. MMC Section 17.40.080, Commercial Development Standards, limits commercial development to a maximum FAR of 0.15. As the Project proposes 7,693 square feet of commercial floor area on a 51,352 square foot (1.18 acre) parcel, the resulting FAR would be 0.15, consistent with the maximum FAR permitted.
The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the MMC and the LCP.
Finding 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located.
The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. The Project Site is zoned for commercial use. The proposed motel use is consistent with the zoning designation and consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity.
Finding 3. The subject site is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
The Project Site is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. 141
The Project Site is located adjacent to PCH on a stretch of highway connecting the Civic Center area of the City with the City’s eastern region. Existing utilities are located within the PCH right-of-way that will serve the Project. The site is physically suitable for the proposed use.
Finding 4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The existing legal non-conforming commercial parking lot as a stand-alone use is being replaced with a commercial use that in contrast is authorized with a conditional use permit in the CV-1 zoning designation.
The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development and applicable design and development standards.
Finding 5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and future land uses within the zoning district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located.
The Project would alter the visual appearance of the Project Site, but as described above, it would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the Project Site or introduce any aesthetic elements incompatible with the surrounding land uses.
Additionally, the proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district, which is compatible with the commercial zoning in the general area. The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development.
Finding 6. There would be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety and the Project does not affect solar access or adversely impact existing public and private views, as defined by the staff.
There would be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. The Project Site, is served by Southern California Edison for electricity and natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Water will be provided by WD29, and WD29 has provided a Department Review Sheet indicating the Project Site may be served. Additionally, there is no municipal sewer yet available in this area of Malibu.
However phased construction is continuing on the CCWTF. The CCWTF now includes a 142
centralized wastewater treatment facility in the Malibu Civic Center area that treats, reuses, and/or disposes of wastewater flows from properties now being served by the system, and will also serve two planned expansions areas (i.e., Phases 2 and 3), including the Project Site within Phase 3. The Project proposes an OWTS composed of a septic system, treatment tank, and disinfection system, subject to review by the City Environmental Health Administrator. The entire system would be contained within the Project Site and has been adequately designed to accommodate wastewater generated by the Project, and wastewater flows of adjacent Aviation Nation Site, and not result in a seepage of groundwater pollutants into the ocean. Additionally, since the Project Site is located in the Phase 3 Prohibition Area of the CCWTF and may be accommodated under the CCWTF buildout by 2028, should Phase 3 CCWTF improvements move forward, the Project’s septic system may have a relatively short life span of approximately ten years.
The Project does not affect solar access or adversely impact existing public and private views. The building would consist of tiered floors, ascending away from PCH at approximately the natural grade of the nearby slope. The building’s exterior architectural finishes fronting PCH would be comprised of non-glare windows, glass paneled railings, and wood siding and paneling. The proposed development would alter the visual character of the Project Site from a surface parking lot with no landscaping and a lightly vegetated hillside to that of a contemporary, landscaped frontage and motel building with architectural design features intended to comply with the LCP and MMC, as well as with all relevant City standard conditions of approval. The proposed new motel would be similar in size, bulk and scale to existing structures to the east and west and would be designed to step back into the hillside to the north. Views of identified scenic resources from public viewing areas such as PCH, the beach, the Pacific Ocean, and Malibu Pier, would not be altered by Project implementation. Although the onsite slope is sparsely vegetated, supporting primarily non-native grassland, and weedy vegetation, efforts to preserve the aesthetic of the slope would be implemented by the Project, including utilizing droughttolerant plant species and the use of an earth tone, faux-rock cladding in the retaining wall.
Portions of the retaining wall extending above the proposed roofline would be further screened from view by Giant Bird of Paradise, which is a plant that can reach a height of 20 feet and the clumps of long stalks can spread as far as 11 feet. The surface and subterranean parking lots would be partially screened from view from PCH through the use of frontage landscaping and/or subterranean parking design. Further, the Project would only alter the lower approximately 50 feet of the slope, while the upper 130 feet will remain unaltered.
Finding 7. There would be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject proposal.
Access to the Project is from PCH, an existing public highway. The public, as well as emergency vehicles, would enter and exit the Project Site via PCH. The Project Site is designed with throughput access from PCH to the Aviation Nation Site parking lot, negating any need for vehicles to turnaround. The modified driveways would require 143
review and approval of an Encroachment Permit by Caltrans. During its review of the permit, Caltrans would ensure the driveways are properly designed to ensure adequate emergency access. All roadway connections would be constructed in conformance with City and Caltrans standards, and would be consistent with LACFD access requirements.
Consequently, roadways would be adequate to provide public and emergency access to the Project Site.
Finding 8. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and general land uses of the General Plan.
The General Plan is a policy document that contains policy measures, while the specific development standards to implement these policy measures are located in the MMC. The Project Site is designated as CV in the General Plan, and is subject to the commercial land use policies of the General Plan. The CV zone is designated for development that is visitor-serving, including overnight accommodations. The motel with ancillary uses is a conditionally permitted commercial use pursuant to the CV land use designation of the General Plan and the CV-1 zoning district of the MMC. Therefore, the proposed motel land use is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use map, and as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and general land uses of the General Plan.
Finding 9. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.
Motels and sale of alcohol are conditionally permitted uses in the CV-1 zoning district. The Project has been reviewed by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.
Finding 10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
An IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. More specifically, the CEQA Guidelines require that potential environmental impacts be evaluated. The range of environmental factors considered include: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities/Service Systems, and Wildfire. On the basis of the evaluation, it was determined that although the Project would have a less than significant effect on the environment with mitigations for Geology/Soils, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources.
144
Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project, as conditioned, will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
Furthermore, the Project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.
Finding 11. If the Project is located in an area determined by the City to be at risk from earth movement, flooding or liquefaction, there is clear and compelling evidence that the proposed development is not at risk from these hazards.
As discussed in above in the Hazards findings, there is clear and compelling evidence that the Project is not located in an area determined by the City to be at risk from earth movement, flooding or liquefaction.
N. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 3 to 1 (MMC Section
17.72.060)
Pursuant to MMC Section 17.40.080(A)(6), the site of construction is limited to areas containing slopes flatter than 3 to 1. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.72.060, the City may approve and/or modify an application for a variance in whole or in part, with or without conditions, provided that it makes eight required findings. Based on evidence in the record, the findings required for VAR No. 18-030 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 are made as follows.
Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
LIP Section 13.27.1(A)(4) allows construction to be located on slopes flatter than 3 to 1.
The proposed development requires grading and excavation of approximately 0.77 acre of the Project Site, which includes a portion of the slope that is steeper than 3 to 1, to accommodate a subterranean garage and structural setback to the proposed motel building. A proposed retaining wall would be installed north of the motel structure, constructed to secure the slope following excavation and maintain a structural setback from the slope, which is also subject to a separate variance request related to height.
The grading, retaining wall and motel building are occurring within the steep slope that rises approximately 190 feet above PCH, which comprises the northern 70 percent of the Project Site. The slope face is sparsely vegetated, supporting primarily non-native 145
grassland, and weedy vegetation. The required grading and excavation, and retaining wall at the lower portion of the slope within the site boundary and adjacent to the existing parking lot is necessary to provide a level building area for the motel building, subterranean parking level, and the at-grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH. As mentioned in B, Finding 1, there are at least three nearby commercial development with retaining walls on similar steep slopes and there are many other commercial development with construction on steep slopes on the same stretch of PCH.
Due to these site characteristics, the proposed development takes advantage of the currently disturbed areas and minimizes construction on steep slopes by keeping the proposed development near PCH as much as possible. The slope analysis that was submitted shows that the Project Site does not offer any alternative locations for development where steep slopes can be avoided. Therefore, a commercial development on the subject property would not be feasible without granting a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 and the subject property owner would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other commercial development under the same zoning classification.
Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.
The proposed variance will allow construction of a motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project, as conditioned, will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare. Furthermore, the Project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.
Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.
As previously stated, the subject property is similar to many other commercial developed properties in this stretch of PCH in that the developed portions are wedged between the Santa Monica Mountains to the north and PCH to the south. Many other commercial development in the area have construction on steep slopes similar to the proposed development. The site’s topography is predominantly characterized by a steep slope.
There is no alternative development pad on the property that would avoid construction on steep slopes. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, could limit commercial development completely on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with 146
surrounding properties in the CV-1 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner.
Finding 4. The granting of such variance or modification will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
The granting of such variance for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed motel and associated development are allowed in the CV-1 zoning district. As previously stated, with the inclusion of the variance, the project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations. The Project, as conditioned, conforms to the MMC and LCP in that it meets all the required commercial standards inclusive of discretionary requests.
Finding 5. The variance or modification request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located.
The variance request is for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 to allow for the construction of a motel in the CV-1 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.
Finding 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance or modification.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site; however, construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 cannot be avoided. In addition, the Project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability, and determined that the Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
Finding 7. The variance or modification permit complies with all requirements of State and local law.
The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.
Finding 8. All or any necessary conditions have been imposed on the variance or modification as are reasonable to assure that the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City.
147
The Project is conditioned for all recommendations of the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers to be incorporated into the final design. Among other conditions, the project was also conditioned to provide a construction staging plan, adhere to limited construction hours, construction management techniques, and dark sky lighting requirements, fuel modification plans, and grading and water quality provisions. With these conditions, the requested variance will not be detrimental to health, safety and welfare of the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department prepared an initial study (IS No. 20-003) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c).
The initial study analyzed the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project and determined that with mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval, the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment; subsequently, MND No. 20-003 was prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
On February 19, 2021, the City made IS/MND No. 20-003 available to the public for the required 30-day circulation period, which concluded on March 22, 2021. The Draft IS/MND was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, which began on March 29, 2021 and ended on April 28, 2021. During the public review period, the following comments were received from public agencies and members of the public:
Table 8 – CEQA Public Comments Letters
Comment Set/
Number of
Comments
Name of Commenter Date Received
Agency Letters
A A.1 – A.2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) April 14, 2021 B B.1 – B.16 Malibu Open Space Alliance April 27, 2021
Individual Letters
1 1.1 – 1.2 Cynthia Randall March 7, 2021
2 2.1 – 2.2 David King March 7, 2021
3 3.1 Christine Kauffman March 8, 2021
4 4.1 Inez McGee March 8, 2021
5 5.1 Katarina Vinegrad Calderon March 8, 2021
6 6.1 Terry Lucoff March 9, 2021
7 7.1 – 7.3 Carla McCloskey (1) March 14, 2021
148
Table 8 – CEQA Public Comments Letters
Comment Set/
Number of
Comments
Name of Commenter Date Received
8 8.1 – 8.3 Lester Tobias March 14, 2021
9 9.1 – 9.7 Jamie Ottilie (1) March 15, 2021
10 10.1 Jamie Ottilie (2) March 15, 2021
11 11.1 Lisa McKean March 15, 2021
12 12.1 – 12.2 Susanne Titus March 15, 2021
13 13.1 – 13.4 Carla McCloskey (2) March 17, 2021
14 14.1 – 1 4.3 Jae Flora-Katz March 17,2021
15 15.1 – 15.3 John Stockwell March 17, 2021
16 16.1 – 16.3 Lynn Saunders Guilburt March 17, 2021
17 17.1 – 17.7 Matt Goodwin March 17, 2021
18 18.1 – 18.57 Patt Healy March 17, 2021
19 19.1 Suzannah Owens March 17, 2021
20 20.1 Judy Ettinger March 18, 2021
21 21.1 – 21.7 Mark and Kim Dempster March 18, 2021
22 22.1 Nick Eliopoulos March 18, 2021
23 23.1 Paul Astin March 18, 2021
24 24.1 Robert Allan March 18, 2021
25 25.1 – 25.6 Roni Serrato March 18, 2021
These comments were discussed in the Responses to Comments on the Draft IS / MND (Attachment 6) added to the Final IS/MND. In addition, the IS/MND has been updated to reflect minor clarifications and corrections. The complete document is listed as Attachment 5 and can be viewed online: https://www.malibucity.org/810/Malibu-Inn-Motel.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, the IS/MND is not required to be recirculated as long as the document has not been substantially revised. A “substantial revision” occurs when a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or the City determines the measures will not reduce the effect to insignificant and new measures or revisions are required. No substantial revision has been made to the project.
The Guidelines also state that recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
149
• Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures, or • New project revisions made in response to comments on project effects which are not new avoidable significant effects, or
• Measures or conditions of approval are added that are not required by CEQA and which do not create new significant effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect, or
• New information is added which merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to the IS/MND.
The Planning Department finds that through feasible conditions and mitigation measures placed on the Project, less than significant impacts on the environment are expected. Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.
CORRESPONDENCE: As mentioned in the Environmental Review section above, staff received 27 public comments related to the IS/MND during the public review period (Attachment 6). The public comments and responses are provided in the Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND. Additional public correspondence is attached hereto as Attachment 7.
PUBLIC NOTICE: On March 23, 2023, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. (Attachment 8)
SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the Project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this Project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 6 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24. The Project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24
2. Project Plans
3. Department Review Sheets
4. Photo Simulations
5. IS/MND https://www.malibucity.org/810/Malibu-Inn-Motel
6. Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND
7. Public Correspondence
150
8. Public Hearing Notice
9. Economic Impact Memo, dated August 26, 2021
10. Malibu Inn Motel Commissioner Inquiries, dated December 16, 2021
11. Building to Slope Setback Response
12. Nearby Retaining Walls
151
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 20-003 AND INITIAL STUDY NO. 20-003 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 09-067 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,693 SQUARE FOOT, 20-ROOM MOTEL ABOVE A NEW
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT,
ROOFTOP DECK WITH SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND BAR AREA,
GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPING, A NEW ONSITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-002 FOR A MOTEL IN THE
COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND SALE OF ALCOHOL; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 18-030 FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1, VARIANCE NO. 18-031 FOR A
RETAINING WALL THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 12 FEET IN HEIGHT, VARIANCE NO. 20-035 FOR SURFACE
PARKING WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 18-025 FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF 18 FEET, NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET FOR A FLAT ROOF, LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR SERVING-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 22959
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(SURFRIDER PLAZA, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. On November 4, 2009, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 09-067, was submitted for the Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project (Former Project) consisting of a new commercial plaza providing 7,713 gross square feet of floor area between two buildings and 82 surface and subterranean parking spaces, located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) zoning district, by Surfrider Plaza, LLC. The application was routed to the City Geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29).
B. On November 5, 2009, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) approved Resolution No. R4-2009-007, banning the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) in the area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB) approved that same resolution, thereby amending the State Basin Plan. The adopted plan for a specific Prohibition Area includes the Project Site. Since an application for the Project Site was submitted prior to the adoption of Resolution No. R4-2009-007, the application is listed on Table 4-zz as being eligible for a new OWTS.
C. On June 15, 2017, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Former Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. The 30-day public review period ran from July 19, 2017. 152
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
D. On June 27, 2017, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed and considered the Former Project, written reports, Initial Study (IS) No. 16-003/MND No. 17-001 and provided recommendations to the Planning Commission.
E. On June 11, 2018, the applicant submitted revised plans for a new motel instead of the previously submitted commercial retail plaza. The revised project plans were then routed to all applicable City departments and County agencies for review. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 18-002, Variance (VAR) Nos. 18-030, 18-031 and 20-035, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 18-025, and Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA) No. 18-001 were added to the Malibu Inn Motel Project (Project).
F. On June 17, 2020, staff deemed the application complete.
G. On February 19, 2021, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. The 30-day public review period ran from February 19, 2021 to March 22, 2021. The Draft IS/MND No. 20-003 was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, that began on March 29, 2021 and ended on April 28, 2021.
H. On June 10, 2021, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.
I. On June 24, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.
J. On August 5, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
K. On August 26, 2021, a Notice of Adjournment was issued for the August 26, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting and adjourned to the September 8, 2021 Adjourned Regular meeting to allow staff additional time to gather additional information and for the applicant to install story poles to represent the proposed motel building.
L. On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 1, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
M. On November 1, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the December 6, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
N. On December 6, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 11, 2022 Special Planning Commission meeting.
O. On January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the April 4, 2022 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
P. On April 4, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. 153
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Q. On March 23, 2023, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
R. On April 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed Project. The Planning Department prepared an initial study (IS No. 20-003) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The initial study analyzed the Project and determined that it will not have a significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures; subsequently, MND No. 20-003 was prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
On February 19, 2021, the City made IS/MND No. 20-003 available to the public for the required 30-day circulation period, which concluded on March 22, 2021. The Draft IS/MND was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, that began on March 29, 2021. The State Clearinghouse closed its review period on April 28, 2021. A total of twenty-seven pieces of correspondence were received during the public comment period, which are discussed in a Response to Comments (Section 2.0) added to the Final IS/MND.
The Planning Commission has considered IS/MND No. 20-003 together with the comments received during the public review process. IS/MND No. 20-003 reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for this Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, nor does it have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
The Planning Commission further finds that less than significant impacts on the environment are expected from the Project, with implementation of mitigation measures. Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.
Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 17, 2023, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 09- 067 for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, rooftop deck with swimming pool, spa and bar area, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a new OWTS and authorization for the Planning Director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol; including CUP No. 18-002 for a motel in the CV-1 zoning district and sale of alcohol, VAR No. 18-030 construction on slopes 154
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
steeper than 3 to 1, VAR No. 18-031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height, VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback, and SPR No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the CV-1 zoning district at 22959 PCH.
The Project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion of the proposed discretionary requests, the Project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.
A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
1. Evidence in the record, including submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable development standards inclusive of the requested discretionary requests. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD.
2. IS/MND No. 20-003 was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Other alternatives were analyzed. This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the Project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources. Evidence in the record demonstrates an alternative project will not have a significant environmental or visual advantage as the development is sited within the property dimensions of legal lots and the footprint of existing and previously existing development. As a result, the Project, as proposed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
3. The Project and IS/MND No. 20-003 were not reviewed by the ERB. However, as a matter of policy, the Former Project for a commercial shopping center and associated IS/MND were reviewed by ERB. The potential environmental impacts as a result of the Project are considered less significant than the Former Project. The ERB recommendation and comment were addressed in IS/MND No. 20-003 and a condition has been added requiring a rootball barrier for the Sycamore trees to minimize potential root damage to the adjacent sidewalk and parking lot.
B. Variance for Retaining Wall in Excess of 12 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.26)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. In order to place a building on the Project Site, the northern slope must be stabilized, and a structural setback is required from the slope to the proposed motel building. The retaining wall would be constructed to secure the graded slope following the excavation and to provide a 15-foot structural setback from the slope. The retaining wall is 21 feet, 10 inches in height above finished grade. The retaining wall would extend below finished grade to accommodate the subterranean parking level and provide for an adequate foundation. The applicant provided evidence showing other nearby commercial development were constructed with similar retaining walls. Therefore, it would not be feasible to develop the property without the proposed retaining wall and the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning and site constraints.
155
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. Other nearby commercial development has been constructed with similar retaining walls, which support the toe of the slope. . The site’s topography is predominantly characterized by a steep slope. There is no alternative development pad on the Project Site that would avoid excavation into the steep slope and the resulting retaining wall to secure the excavation. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would prohibit commercial development on the Project Site. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV-1 zoning district. The proposed variance would not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner in that there are other examples of similar retaining walls constructed for nearby development and, without the variance, a commercial development on the property would not be feasible.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The variance request is to allow for the construction of a retaining wall that exceeds 12 feet in height to allow for the development of the proposed motel in the CV-1 zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is primarily sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site; however, given that the site is predominantly on a slope, the proposed retaining wall in excess of 12 feet in height cannot be avoided. The proposed retaining is a building code requirement to maintain a horizontal structural setback to the toe of the slope. The proposed retaining wall is necessary for any new building on the subject parcel.
7. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development are conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
C. Variance for Construction for Surface Parking within the Required Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.26)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. Without allowing the required parking within the front yard setback, there would not be sufficient space to site for the required parking. The proposed variance would allow for the parking required for the use to be provided onsite as required by the LCP.
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of the proposed motel in compliance with the minimum required parking spaces. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, 156
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. Almost all other commercial development on this stretch of PCH is developed with parking within the required front yard setback. There is no alternative development pad on the property that would avoid encroachment of the required parking in the front yard setback.
Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would prohibit commercial development on the Project Site. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV-1 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner as it is consistent with other surrounding development subject to similar site constraints.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The proposed uses are consistent with the allowed uses in the applicable CV-1 zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is utilizing the disturbed portion of the subject site, and there is an existing surface parking lot located within the front yard setback. Locating the surface parking lot within the front yard setback cannot be avoided due to the steep slope to the north of the parking lot.
7. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
D. Site Plan Review for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27.5)
1. Evidence in the record, including submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable development standards inclusive of the requested discretionary requests. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD.
2. The Project would alter the visual appearance of the Project Site, but would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the Project Site or introduce any aesthetic elements incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and the height of the proposed building has been limited to minimize impacts to visual character. The Project Site is buffered from surrounding residential areas by open space and the incorporation of additional landscaping. The design of the proposed building would also serve as a barrier that reduces noise transmission, as patios would face away from residential areas and the building would contain some vehicle noise within the subterranean parking garage. The Project does not propose amplified sound (music, concerts, etc.). 157
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
3. Photo simulations to show the design and scale of the proposed development from three vantage points were submitted instead of story poles. As demonstrated in the photo simulations, due to the size, shape, and topography of the lot, the proposed development will blend into the hillside, will be minimally visible from public viewing areas or scenic roads, and is not located within primary views of neighboring properties.
4. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
5. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, Project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the MMC and the LCP, inclusive of the VARs and SPR.
E. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical report and conditions required by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, including foundations, OWTS, and drainage. As such, the proposed Project will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.
2. The Project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to Project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
3. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
4. Evidence in the record demonstrates that there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen any adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity as none are expected as a result of the Project.
5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.
F. Conditional Use Permit for New Motel Use and Sale of Alcohol (MMC Section
17.66.080)
1. The Project Site is zoned for commercial use, and the proposed motel use is conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district and is consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity.
158
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
2. The proposed motel use is consistent with the commercial zoning designation and consistent with existing commercial land uses in the vicinity. The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district.
3. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed motel land use. The Project is located within the developed commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district.
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The existing legal non-conforming commercial parking lot as a stand-alone use is being replaced with a commercial use that in contrast is authorized with a conditional use permit in the CV-1 zoning designation.
5. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the zoning district and surrounding area, as it is a commercial use contemplated by the zoning district. The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district, which is compatible with the commercial zoning in the general area.
6. There would be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.
Adequate public services and utilities are available to serve the Project. The Project does not affect solar access or adversely impact existing public and private views.
7. Adequate public access is available to serve the Project. Access to the Project is from PCH, an existing public highway. The public, as well as emergency vehicles, would enter and exit the Project Site via PCH. The Project Site is designed with throughput access from PCH to the Aviation Nation Site parking lot, negating any need for vehicles to turnaround. The modified driveways would require review and approval of an Encroachment Permit by Caltrans. During its review of the permit, Caltrans would ensure the driveways are properly designed to ensure adequate emergency access. All roadway connections would be constructed in conformance with City and Caltrans standards, and would be consistent with LACFD access requirements.
8. Evidence in the record demonstrates the proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
9. The Project will be in full compliance with all applicable State, County and City of Malibu ordinances and laws.
10. As designed and conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, and will provide the public benefit of a potable water supply for domestic use and fire protection.
159
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
11. There is clear and compelling evidence that the Project is not located in an area determined by the City to be at risk from earth movement, flooding or liquefaction. With the implementation of the recommendations of the Project geotechnical engineer and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, less than significant impacts on structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards are expected. The Project, as conditioned, will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, fire or any other hazards.
G. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 3 to 1 (MMC Section 17.72.060)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. The proposed development requires grading and excavation of approximately 0.77 acre of the Project Site, which includes a portion of the slope that is steeper than 3 to 1, to accommodate a subterranean garage and structural setback to the proposed motel building. It would not be feasible to develop the property without development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1.
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of the proposed motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner. The required grading and excavation of the lower portion of the 3 to 1 slope within the site boundary and adjacent to the existing parking lot is necessary to provide a level building area for the motel building, subterranean parking level, and at-grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH. There is no alternative development pad on the property that would avoid construction on steep slopes. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, could limit development of a commercial building completely on the subject property.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The variance request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the CV-1 zoning district. The motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district and development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 is necessary so that the motel development can be constructed in the CV-1 zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is primarily sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site; however, given that the site is predominantly on a slope, development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 to allow for the construction of a motel in the CV-1 zoning district cannot be avoided.
7. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and 160
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
8. The Project is conditioned for all recommendations of the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers to be incorporated into the final design. Among other conditions, the project was also conditioned to provide a construction staging plan, adhere to limited construction hours, construction management techniques, and dark sky lighting requirements, fuel modification plans, and grading and water quality provisions. With these conditions, the requested variance will not be detrimental to health, safety and welfare of the City.
SECTION 4. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity.
According to the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity may be required for the overconcentration of licenses. Based on CUP findings in Section 3(G) of this resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare and is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council authorizes the Planning Director to prepare and submit a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity for the proposed use to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department.
SECTION 5. Planning Commission Action.
Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby adopts IS-MND No. 20-003 and approves CDP No. 09-067, CUP No. 18-002, VAR Nos. 18-030, 18-031, and 20-035, and SPR No. 18-025, subject to the following conditions.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions
1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this Project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this Project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this Project.
2. Approval of this application is to allow for the Project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Construction of a new, 2-story, 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage (0.15 FAR);
b. Rooftop deck with a swimming pool, spa and bar;
c. Surface parking lot;
d. Hardscape and landscaping;
e. Grading and retaining wall;
161
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
f. Onsite wastewater treatment system; and
g. Discretionary Requests:
i. CUP No. 18-002 for a new motel in the CV-1 zoning district and sale of alcohol;
ii. VAR No. 18-030 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1; iii. VAR No. 18-031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height;
iv. VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback; and
v. SPR No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof.
3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped May 18, 2020. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event the Project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.
4. This conditional use permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until all appeals are exhausted, and the property owner executes the Affidavit of the Acceptance of Conditions. Said documents shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder and a certified copy of said recordation shall be filed with the Planning Department within 10 days of the effective date of the approval.
5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.
6. This CDP shall expire if the Project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.
In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the Project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.
7. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.
8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, WD29, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.
9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the 162
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Project is still in compliance with the MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.
10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the CCC, have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.
11. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.
Lighting
12. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60- watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.
13. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.
14. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.
15. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.
16. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.
17. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.
18. Three sequential violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site. 163
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Construction / Framing
19. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
20. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.
21. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires will be rinsed off prior to leaving the property.
22. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.
23. Prior to issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The WRRP shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 50 percent of all construction generated by the Project.
24. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.
Cultural Resources
25. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.
26. If human bone is discovered, the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. These require notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.
164
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Site-Specific Conditions
27. No off-site sale of alcohol shall be permitted. Alcohol shall only be served for room service and within the rooftop deck for motel guests.
28. This CUP permits the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The property owner / motel operator shall obtain all necessary approvals from ABC. Once obtained, the applicant is required to provide the Planning Department a copy of the issued ABC license.
29. A copy of the current ABC license shall be kept on the premises of the establishment and be presented to City staff, including the City’s Planning Director and Code Enforcement staff, law enforcement officers or their duly authorized representatives, upon request.
30. At all times during the conduct of the permitted use, the permittee shall maintain and keep in effect valid licensing approval from ABC. Should such licensing be denied, expire or lapse at any time in the future, the approval of alcohol sale pursuant to this permit is subject to modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section
17.66.100(C).
31. Prior to the commencement of alcohol service, the property owner / operator shall install small signs in the interior of the business, as depicted on the project plans, requesting that patrons be courteous and quiet when occupying outdoor areas and stating that alcohol may only be consumed in compliance with the motel’s ABC license.
32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
33. No live entertainment or amplified sound is permitted on the property except in compliance with an approved temporary use permit provided it can be demonstrated that the noise generated from the event would be in compliance with Condition No. 38 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event.
34. The property owner / operator shall adhere to a “good neighbor” policy, meaning that the operator and employees must respect the rights of neighboring properties and, to the best of their ability, shall ensure their patrons’ compliance with the City’s noise and smoking regulations and all conditions of approval for the subject use relating to parking, smoking, litter, noise, loitering, etc.
35. Noise emanating from the premises shall not be plainly audible at a distance of five feet of any residential unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., as required by MMC Section 8.24.050(L).
36. The onsite kitchen may only serve food and beverages to motel guests.
37. The motel operator must adhere to all laws related to the sale of alcohol. Violations of such laws may be cause for modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section 17.66.100(C).
165
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
38. No other new signage is permitted under this application; a sign permit shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation of any new sign.
39. The landscaping plan must be revised to include a detail depicting a barrier encircling root balls to be used for all the California Sycamore trees in order to minimize potential root damage to the sidewalk and parking lot. The planting of the California Sycamore trees must be in compliance with this detail.
40. The third driveway curb cut on the Aviation Nation Site from west to east must be removed.
41. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the property owner must pay the in-lieu fee for the lower cost overnight accommodations in compliance with LIP Section 12.10.
42. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the property owner / applicant must provide a rooftop floor plan showing the location of the umbrellas in compliance with the height limit.
43. None of the parking spaces may be used as public parking.
44. No more than six employees can be at the site at any one shift.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
45. The Project shall comply with all the mitigation measures included in the MMRP of IS/MND No. 20-003.
Colors and Materials
46. The Project is visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas and shall incorporate colors and materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans.
b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.
47. Retaining walls visible from beaches or public viewing areas shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials. The colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the grading and building plans.
48. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. The colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the grading and building plans.
166
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Conditional Use Permit
49. This conditional use permit may be reviewed by the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) and/or Planning Commission on an as-needed basis at the discretion of the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) or Planning Commission. Should it be determined that a review is required, the applicant shall pay the Planning Department staff site inspection fee in effect at the time of request for a site inspection. A staff planner will conduct a site visit to verify compliance with the provisions set forth in this resolution. If necessary, the Planning Director will determine whether the conditional use permit may be brought back to the Planning Commission for additional conditions to mitigate and/or prevent nuisances that were identified during the site inspection or made aware of by members of the public. Possible mitigation measures can include:
a. Modifying the hours of operation;
b. Incorporating noise mitigating measures/devices;
c. Traffic safety measures;
d. Land use intensification or reconfiguration of shared parking that would result in a parking demand greater than approved under this application; or e. Other measures deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
50. The property owner / tenant shall not use the parking lot for any use other than the uses and activities explicitly permitted for the subject parcel or as permitted by a temporary use permit or filming permit.
51. The property owner and operator must secure an off-site parking area to accommodate vehicles for all events that overlap with other uses that will generate a parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property.
52. The conditional use permit may be modified by the City without the consent of the property owner or operator if the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance.
53. A conditional use permit that is valid and in effect, and was granted pursuant to the provisions of the MMC, shall run with the land and continue to be valid upon change of ownership of the land or any lawfully existing building or structure on the land.
54. This conditional use permit shall no longer be valid and in effect with the demolition of all buildings, including a major remodel constituting new development requiring a new CDP.
55. The conditional use permit may be revoked if the Planning Commission finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
a. The conditional use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner; b. One or more of the conditions found within this resolution have not been substantially met; or
c. The use for which the CUP was granted ceased for six successive calendar months after the start of operations, except in the case of natural disaster.
56. The Planning Commission may revoke the conditional use permit should the conditionally permitted use cease for six successive calendar months, except in the case of a natural disaster.
167
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Building Plan Check/Department Conditions
Water Quality/Water Service
57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Will Serve Letter from WD29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.
Biology/Landscaping
58. The use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance which has the potential to degrade biological resources shall prohibited throughout the City of Malibu. The eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration shall consider first the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls. Herbicides may be selected only after all other non-chemical methods have been exhausted. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and use for a limited time.
59. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final Project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter 9.22). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 9.22.
60. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.
61. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).
62. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.
63. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
64. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the WD29.
65. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three sequential violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.
66. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).
168
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
67. Plantings required for fuel modification must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.
68. Use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.
69. Delete Dragon tree (Dracaena draco) from the planting plan along the PH frontage. All street frontage trees are limited to species natives to the Santa Monica Mountains.
Environmental Health
70. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.
71. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).
72. A final design and system specifications shall be submitted as to all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final design drawings and calculations must be signed by a California registered civil engineer, a registered environmental health specialist or a professional geologist who is responsible for the design. The final OWTS design drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).
73. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42 inches tall.
74. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.
The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of 169
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
bedroom equivalents, plumbing fixture equivalents, and/or the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design;
b. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
c. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
d. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:
For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.
75. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setbacks must be approved by the City Building Safety Division. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted to Building and Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives, etc.). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. The architectural/structural/ waterproofing plans must show the location of OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable).
76. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the applicant shall provide engineer’s certification for reduction in setbacks to buildings or structures: All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Table
15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely 170
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
affect the structural integrity of the OWTS, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced. Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table
15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a Californialicensed architect, then the required architect’s certification may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setbacks to the wastewater system. In this case, the engineer must include in his/her letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback, then the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Safety Division plan check. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters.
77. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
78. A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder's Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.
79. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair.
Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Environmental Sustainability Department.
80. Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
171
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
81. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.
82. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed OWTS after construction shall be submitted. Only original wet signature documents are acceptable and shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
83. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
84. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
85. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area if applicable.
86. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit.
87. The applicant/property owner must submit wastewater plans, and all necessary supporting forms and reports to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to assure compliance with the California Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan). Prior to the issuance of any City-issued development permits, RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements shall be obtained and submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
Geology
88. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City Geologist shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
89. Final plans approved by the City Geologist shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require amendment of the CDP or a new CDP. 172
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Public Works
Street Improvements
90. The Project proposes to construct a new driveway and other improvements within Caltrans' right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for the proposed improvements.
Grading/Drainage
91. Exported soil from the site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.
A note shall be placed on the project plans that addresses this condition.
92. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the Project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes;
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan; and
h. Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
93. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.
173
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.
94. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the Project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to grading or building permit issuance.
The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, postconstruction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public street and any drainage easements.
Stormwater
95. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the Project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sandbag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.
96. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.
The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by 174
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.
97. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.3 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site.
The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs);
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs;
d. Drainage improvements;
e. Methods for onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site Project impacts;
f. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; g. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. Once the plan is approved and stamped by the Public Works Department, the original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted prior to the Public Works Department approval of building plans for the Project.
Miscellaneous
98. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
99. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right-of-way. 100. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit a PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.
Swimming Pool and Spa
101. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is 175
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 (including tributaries).
Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
102. The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating "It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5)." The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property: Prior to the issuance of any permits; the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
Commercial Development
103. All commercial developments shall be designed to control the runoff of pollutants from structures, parking and loading docks. The following minimum measures shall be implemented to minimize the impacts of commercial developments on water quality:
a. Proper design of loading and unloading docks.
i. Cover loading/unloading dock areas or design drainage to minimize runon and runoff of storm water. ii. Direct connections to storm drains from depressed loading/unloading docks are prohibited.
b. Properly design Repair/Maintenance Bays
i. Repair/maintenance bays must be indoors or designed to prohibit storm water runoff or contact with storm water runoff.
ii. Repair/maintenance bays shall be designed to capture all wash water, leaks, and spills. Connect drains to a sump for collection and disposal:
Direct connection of the repair/maintenance bays to the storm drain is prohibited. Obtain an Industrial waste discharge permit if required. c. Properly Design Vehicle/Equipment Wash Areas
i. Self-contained and/or covered wash areas shall be equipped with a clarifier or other pretreatment facility and properly connected to a sanitary sewer.
d. Properly designed Parking Lots (5,000 square feet of impervious surface or 25 parking spaces.)
i. Minimize impervious surfacing for parking area.
ii. Infiltrate runoff before it reaches a storm drain system. iii. Treat to remove oil and petroleum hydrocarbons at parking lots that are heavily used.
iv. Ensure adequate operation and maintenance of treatment systems particularly sludge and oil removal system fouling and plugging prevention control.
176
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
Restaurants
104. Properly design equipment/accessory wash areas:
a. Install self-contained wash area, equipped with grease trap, and properly connected to Sanitary Sewer.
b. If the Wash area is located outdoors, it must be covered, paved, have secondary containment and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer.
Trash Storage Areas
105. Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area.
106. Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.
Outdoor Material Storage
107. Materials with the potential to contaminate storm water must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet shed or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes or curbs.
108. The storage areas must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. 109. The storage area must have a roof or awning to minimize collection of storm water within the secondary containment area.
Prior to Final Sign-Off/Prior to Occupancy
110. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the Project site and determine that all planning conditions have been implemented to protect natural resources in compliance with approved plans and this resolution. 111. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report (WRRP Summary Report). The final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled, broken down by material types. The Environmental Sustainability Department shall approve the Final Summary Report. 112. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division. 113. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A final approval and Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the Project complies with this CDP. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been 177
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.
114. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Deed Restrictions
115. The property owner(s) are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted Project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning approval. 116. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 13-19.
The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.
Fixed Conditions
117. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
118. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.
Mitigation Measures
119. Worker Education and Unanticipated Discovery Response. A qualified paleontologist as approved by the City of Malibu and the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Department shall be retained prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of any individual project phase. Prior to ground-disturbance, the qualified paleontologist shall provide the construction crew(s) a brief summary of the paleontological potential of the underlying geology, the rationale behind the need for protection of paleontological resources, information on the initial identification of paleontological resources, and procedures to implement in the event paleontological resources are discovered.
In the event paleontological resources are uncovered at any point during construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall halt ground-disturbing activities and notify the Paleontologist and City, at which time the Paleontologist shall conduct an on-site inspection of the discovery, make a preliminary taxonomic identification, determine whether further action is required, and recommend measures for further evaluation, and/or collection of the resource as appropriate.
178
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
a. Ground-disturbance shall not resume in the vicinity of the of the discovery until the Paleontologist has assessed the resource.
b. The Paleontologist hall have the authority to halt and/or redirect construction activities to allow a reasonable amount of space and time to evaluate potential resources.
c. Significant resources shall be collected, prepared, and curated with an accredited institution as determined necessary by the Paleontologist. 120. Construction Noise Control. All construction machinery and delivery trucks shall be maintained to the highest level of performance, and shall be outfitted with all noise reduction accessories, e.g., mufflers, enclosures, etc. that are offered by the equipment manufacturers. The construction site shall be laid out such that materials are stored and staged near the southwestern edge of the site to maximize the distance from the residence and daycare. A temporary barrier capable of reducing the intensity of sound shall be erected between the project site and the school during the construction period. Prior to construction, all residences within 500 feet of the property line shall be individually notified of the project’s construction schedule. Prior to construction, a sign shall be posted on the site that is legible from at least 50 feet off-site. The sign shall include a telephone number that residents can call to inquire about the construction process and to register complaints. The project applicant shall designate a “noise control coordinator” who will reply to all construction noise-related questions and complaints. Pile driving shall not be conducted on-site unless approved by the City.
121. Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Amplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses.
122. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 75-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall assess the find. The Lead Agency or Project manager shall contact the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians to consult if any such find occurs within areas culturally and traditionally affiliated with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. 179
Resolution No 23-24
______________________
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th of April 2023.
__________________________________________
DENNIS R. SMITH, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20 (Appeals), a decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.
Appeal forms and fee schedule may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-24 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the special meeting held on the 17th of April 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
180
ATTACHMENT 2
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE
PLOT DATESCALE
DRAWING NO.
DRAWN BY
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE
PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF THE ARCHITECT AND
SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY
WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB
SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
24911 PACIFIC COAST HWY.MALIBU, CA 90265TEL. 310-456-5905
MALIBU INN MOTEL
22959-PCH-FD-2020-05-01-nopalm.pln
11/2/21
A-3.2
PROPOSED SECTIONS
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
23'-7 3/4"
24.00'
68.00'
24 max height of the bldg.
3'-11 1/2" 1/2" 11' 1'-5" 8'-1" 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-9" 20.00' 23.96' 24.00' 35.00' 36.42' 44.50' 46.25' 54.25' 56.83' 59.34'
68.08'
8'-1"
21'-11"
10'-9"
23'-11"
15'
12' 3'
30"
3'-6"
70.00'
20.00'
5' MIN.
15 ' MIN PER BLDG. CODE
4'
70.00'
23.96'
PCH SIDEWALK 3'-5" 22959 PCH - PARKING LOT
VARIES
MAX 30"
3'-6"
60.33'
+42"
GUARDRAIL
+42"
AVERAGE ADJACENTFINISH GRADE = + 46
MID/ AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE HEIGHT
GARAGE
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
ELEVATOR LOBBY
MAIN LEVEL
DECK
M
RESTROOM
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
RM
18 ADA
BATH
ROOF
DECK
(F.D)
WALKWAY
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECKCEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVELCEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBYFF @ LOBBYFINISH GRADEFF @ GARAGE
24 ' ABV. NAT. GRADE
FYSB LINES
TOP OF GUARD RAIL
NAT. GRADE
24 ' ABV. NAT. GRADE
ELEVATOR PIT
DEBRIS PROTECTION
MAX HEIGHT
NAT. GRADE
PCH
PL
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION B
NOTE:1. USE OF NON-GLARE GLASS WHERE APPLICABLE
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
___ City of Malibu _______________ 23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 __________ (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650 JAN o ~
BIOLOGY REVIEW PLANN1N~ ~r--~~
REFERRAL SHEET
TO: City of Malibu Biologist DATE: ________
FROM: City of Malibu Planning Department
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT I CONTACT: Jose h Lezama, Burd e and Associates Architect APPLICANT ADDRESS: 24911 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu CA 90265
APPLICANT PHONE #: 310 456-5905
APPLICANT FAX #:
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
PLANNER: Adrian Fernandez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Motel, Grading, Retaining Walls, NAOWTS.
Previously proposed as a new commercial
building.
TO: Malibu Planning Department andlor Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Dave Crawford
_______ The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed proiect design
(See Attached).
The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.
The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Reciuires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).
_ //
Signat6re Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:
Dave Crawford, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05 29 2018
ATTACHMENT 3
215
__
_______ CityBiology.of PlanningMalibu Department / 23825 Smart Ranch Road• Malibu, California• 90265-486 1 Phone (310) 456-2489 Fax (310) 317-1950 www.malibucity.org
BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Joseph Lezama
(name and email joseph~buaia.com
address)
Project Address: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
~o. ~ — ~. .~ .~..__
Project Description: New motel, grading, retaining walls, NAOWTS, Previously proposed as a new budg
DateofReview: •f~~ruaryi1,2019
Reviewer:
Dave Crawford Si. nature:
Contact Information: Phone: 310 456-2489 ext. 307 Email~ dcrawford(ã~mal .ucitv.orq
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plans: 1/8/19
SiteSurvey: 1/~~1 9
_
lrrigation/Hydrozone/ 1/8/19
waterbudgetPlan: ~__
. Grading Plans: 1/8/19 .
OWTS Plan: 1/8/19
Bio Assessment:
Biolnventory:
Native Tree Survey:
Native Tree Protection
Plan
Other:
Previous Reviews:) Incomplete 12/14/09, incomplete 5/22/12, incomplete 4/7/15, approved 8/25/1 5, incom.lete 6/26/18
REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: LI INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.
LI DENIED The project cannot be approved as designed as it is conflict with one or more elements of the LCP and/or City Codes.
~ APPROVED The proposed project approved with theconditions attached.
Environmental Review LI This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Board: Environmental Review Board
Rccycled Papa
216
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 09-067
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
February 11,2019
DISCUSSION:
1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 131,018 gallons per year.
The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWIJ) totals 120,472 gpy, thus meeting the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:
A. Prior to installation ofany landscaping, the applicant shall obtain plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
B. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed offby the Building Safety Division.
C. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter 9.22). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance ofresponsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 9.22.
D. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.
For approval contact:
Nima Parsa
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (preferred)
Phone: (310)317-1389
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check.
E. Delete Dragon tree (Dracaena draco) from the planting plan along the PCH frontage. All street frontage trees are limited to species native to the Santa Monica Mountains.
F. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six (6) feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height.
G. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City ofMalibu, are prohibited.
Recycled Papec
217
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 09-067
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
February 11, 2019
H. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration ofits future growth).
I. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use ofbuildmg materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote and copper arsenate.
J. Grading should be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1-October 31st. Ifit becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 —March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation ofvegetation removal and/or grading activities.
K. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting ofnatural habitat areas.
L. Up-lighting oflandscaping is prohibited.
2. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
-oOo
If you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
Recycled Papec
218
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE 03/21/2022 APPLICANT / CONTACT: John Yaroslaski
APPLICANT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT PHONE #: (805) 772-0150
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New motel, grading, retaining walls, new AOWTS
7475 Carmelita Ave
Atascadero, CA 93422
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT EMAIL: John Yaroslaski <[email protected]> TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheet(s) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
January 20, 2023
219
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE 03/21/2022 The applicant must submit to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Specialist to determine whether or not an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) Plot Plan approval is required.
The Environmental Health Specialist may be contacted Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 am to 11:00 am, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 364.
Rev 141008
220
City of Malibu
Environmental Health ● Environmental Sustainability Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org
T:\Project Review\Pacific Coast Hwy\22959 PCH - Surfrider Plaza\CDP 09-067\230120_22959 PCH_CDP 09-067 Revised_EH Conf Rev_CRC.docx Recycled Paper
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email
address)
John Yaroslaski
Ensitu Engineering, Inc.
[email protected]
Project Address: 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 09-067 Revised
Project Description: New motel, grading, retaining walls, new AOWTS Date of Review: January 20, 2023
Reviewer: Paolo Quinto Signature:
Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext.364 Email: [email protected]
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Architectural Plans: Burdge & Associates: Dated 6-8-18
Grading Plans: Grading and Drainage plan by GeoWorks: Dated 5-8-18 OWTS Plan: Ensitu Engineering Inc.: Revised plan dated 1-11-23 OWTS Report: Ensitu Engineering Inc.: Revised design report dated 1-11-23 Geology Report: Geologic Map by GeoConcepts dated May 2018 Miscellaneous: Reduced setback letter by GeoConcepts dated 1-24-19 Reduced setback letter by Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering Dated 1-28-19 Previous Reviews: Ensitu Engineering Inc.: Revised plans dated 10-27-22, 6-28-22, 3-17-22; Plans dated 5-30-18, revised plan dated 2-19-19;
EH Complete Conformance Review dated 3-8-19 for CDP 09-067, commercial building; EH Complete Conformance Review dated 4-9-16 for CDP 09-067, commercial office building. Revised EH Conformance review dated 6-25-18
REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The listed conditions of Planning stage conformance review and plan check review comments shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
CONFORMANCE REVIEW INCOMPLETE for the City of Malibu LIP and MMC.
The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Based upon the project description and submittal information noted above, a conformance review was completed for a new advanced onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) proposed to serve the onsite wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the subject property. The proposed advanced OWTS meets the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project consultants 221
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
January 20, 2023
and, prior to final approval, provide a coordinated submittal addressing all conditions for final approval and plan check items.
The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the subject development project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the project OWTS Plot Plan and associated construction drawings (during Building Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.
Conditions of Planning Conformance Review for Building Plan Check Approval:
1) Final Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Plot Plan: A final plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The plans must include all necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property, and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS Plot Plan shall show essential features of the OWTS, existing improvements, and proposed/new improvements. The plot must fit on an 11” x 17” sheet leaving a 5” left margin clear to provide space for a City-applied legend. If the plan scale is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). 2) Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the OWTS.
All plans and reports must be signed by a City Registered OWTS Designer and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).
The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms.
Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design.
b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter, ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and the design basis for engineered systems.
222
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
January 20, 2023
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features.
Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsf). Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics. e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). [Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
3) Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 4) Traffic-Rated Slab Plan(s): All project traffic rated slab plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
5) Notice of Decision: The final onsite wastewater treatment system plans shall include the Conditions of Approval sections of the Notice of Decision (NOD) from the Planning Department. 6) Architect / Engineer Certification for Reduction in Setbacks to Buildings or Structures:
All proposed reductions in setbacks from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures or other features less than those shown in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 15.42 must be supported by letters from the project consultants. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. The construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setback must be approved by City of Malibu Building Safety prior to Environmental Health final approval. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted for Building Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. All plans must show the location of onsite wastewater treatment system components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable).
• Structures – All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 15.42) must be supported by a letter from the project Structural Engineer and a letter from the project Soils Engineer (i.e., a Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both 223
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
January 20, 2023
engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the onsite wastewater treatment system, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the setback is reduced.
• Buildings – All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 15.42) also must be supported by a letter from the project Architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California licensed architect, then the required Architect’s certification may be supplied by an Engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setback to the wastewater system; in this case the Engineer must include in the letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback(s), then the Architect (or Engineer) must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Plan Check. 7) Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted. 8) Operations & Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed advanced OWTS.
9) Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed advanced onsite wastewater treatment system shall be submitted prior to Environmental Health approval. Please note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable. 10) Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Covenant: A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Malibu Municipal Code. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Please submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder. 11) OWTS Monitoring Plan: A monitoring and maintenance plan must be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator for approval. The plan must adhere to the recommendations of the OWTS designer and include a monitoring plan, maintenance schedule, sampling program and corrective actions if the OWTS fails to function as designed or meet the prescribed standards outlined in the monitoring plan.
12) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
13) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
224
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
January 20, 2023
14) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
15) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
16) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. 17) Waste Discharge Requirements: Submit wastewater plans, and all necessary supporting forms and reports, to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 320 W. 4th St., Los Angeles, CA 90013, (213) 576-6600, to assure compliance with the California Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan). RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements shall be obtained and submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. 18) Final plans must include the following:
a) The flow diagram and final plans shall show recycle flows from the MicroSepTec processor units back to the flow equalization tank.
b) Ensure that sufficient alkalinity and carbon is available in the waste stream to achieve the treatment standard.
c) Integrated provisions for automated return flow to the head of the system. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
225
1 ADDED 100% INSTALLED EXPANSION 10/27/2022 JNY
DISPERSAL FIELD, UPDATED INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS/LIMITS 2 ADDED FIELD AIR/VACUUM RELIEF AND 01/11/2023
MANUAL TRANSFER SWITH WITH RECEPTACLE
GENERAL NOTES:
1. EXISTING OWTS COMPONENTS LOCATION AND ABANDONMENT:
1.1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL EXISTING ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS) COMPONENTS. THE LOCATIONS ON THE ENGINEERING
PLANS ARE INFORMATIONAL AND MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE OWTS. MANY ITEMS, SUCH AS TANKS, PIPING, DISTRIBUTION DEVICES, SEEPAGE
PITS, DISPERSAL FIELDS, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES ARE BURIED AND NOT LOCATABLE BY THE SURVEYOR OR UTILITIES LOCATOR .
1.2. PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK TO ABANDON, REMOVE, OR REPLACE EXISTING ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS) COMPONENTS AN "OWTS ABANDONMENT PERMIT" SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF MALIBU. ALL WORK
PERFORMED IN THE OWTS ABANDONMENT, REMOVAL, OR REPLACEMENT AREA
SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. THE OBTAINMENT OF ANY SUCH REQUIRED PERMITS
OR APPROVALS FOR THIS SCOPE OF WORK SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT AND THEIR AGENTS.
1.3. THE EXISTING OWTS COMPONENTS INCLUDING; SEPTIC TANK(S), PIPING,
CLEANOUT(S) SEEPAGE PIT(S), DISPERSAL FIELD(S), AND ALL OTHER
APPURTENANCES SHALL BE PROPERLY ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CITY OF MALIBU ORDINANCE 435, SECTION 15.40.170 C, AND SECTION 15.40.170 D, TITLE 28 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PLUMBING CODE, AND POLICIES. METHOD OF
ABANDONMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND/OR THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE
2. SEWER PIPE SHALL BE BEDDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND TITLE 28 OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PLUMBING CODE, AND ORDINANCES.
3. SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND APPURTENANCES (INCLUDING CLEAN-OUTS, VENTS, BACKWATER VALVES, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 28 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PLUMBING CODE, AND POLICIES.
4. ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 27 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE
MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODE, AND ORDINANCES.
5. A REGISTERED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER,
SHALL DETERMINE IF THE WASTEWATER LOADING RATE WILL CAUSE THE EXISTING SLOPE TO BECOME UNSTABLE. ENSITU ENGINEERING INC., IS NOT A GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING FIRM, THEREFORE, WE CAN NOT PREDICT AND/OR DETERMINE THE STABILITY OF THE EXISTING SLOPE.
6. THE PROJECT ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL OBSERVE THE INSTALLATION OF THE
TANK AND DISPERSAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS OF THE AOWTS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; (A) TANK EXCAVATION, BEDDING, AND BACKFILL (B) SEEPAGE PITS
EXCAVATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND BACKFILL (C) SUBSURFACE DISPERSAL SYSTEM
BEDDING, FILL MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND BACKFILL) AND PROVIDE THE CITY
INSPECTOR WITH A FIELD MEMORANDUM(S) DOCUMENTING AND VERIFYING THAT THE
TANK AND DISPERSAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS WERE INSTALLED PER APPROVED AOWTS PLANS.
7. LEACH FIELDS AND DISPERSAL SYSTEMS DESIGNATED AS SAND CATEGORY: ANY
REMAINING FILL MATERIAL AND ANY BEACH SAND SEDIMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE
REDUCED PERMEABILITY FROM EXISTING LEACH FIELD OPERATIONS ENCOUNTERED
BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPOSED LEACH FIELD OR ANY MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEACH FIELD THAT IS NOT CATEGORIZED AS BEACH
SAND DEPOSITS SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO THE LEVEL OF THE NATIVE BEACH SAND DEPOSITS AND REPLACED WITH DOUBLE- WASHED SAND. THE PROJECT ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST SHALL OBSERVE THE EXCAVATION OF THE LEACH FIELD AND CONFIRM IN
WRITING THAT ALL THE DELETERIOUS FILL AND NON-BEACH SAND MATERIALS BELOW
THE LEACH FIELD HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH CLEAN SAND AND THE LEACH FIELD WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED OWTS PLANS.
8. SUBSURFACE DRIP LINE SHALL BE PLACED IN UNCOMPACTED NATIVE SOILS RIPPED AND TILLED A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES. SOIL SHALL BE AMENDED TO BE 30% SAND, 30% MULCH, 40% NATIVE OR LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHALL BE CONTACTED TO ADVISE CONTRACTOR ON TYPE OF TOPSOIL TO IMPORT FOR MINIMUM BURIAL DEPTH.
DISPERSAL FIELD SHALL BE PLANTED AND ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY (ENGINEER TO VERIFY)
9. ALL DIMENSIONS AND GRADES SHALL BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SYSTEM
INSTALLATION, BUILDING SEWER DEPTH OR CONNECTION POINT WAS NOT PROVIDED
AND SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
10. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY DEPTH AND LOCATION OF BUILDING SEWER CONNECTION, MINIMUM 2% SLOPE FROM STRUCTURE TO CONNECTION POINT.
11. ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SHALL BE VENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 28 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PLUMBING CODE, AND POLICIES.
12. THE OWTS IS SITED AS FAR LANDWARD AS FEASIBLE.
LEGEND
BORING LOCATION
TEST HOLE LOCATION
TEST PIT LOCATION
SEEPAGE PIT TEST HOLE
PROPOSED DISPERSAL FIELD
AREA DEDICATED TO
22969 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
100% EXPANSION DISPERSAL FIELD
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
B-XX
ITP-XX
TP-XX
B-X
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION MFG/PART NUMBER
11 CONNECTION TO BUILDING SANITARY
SEWER[1]
21 CONNECTION TO BUILDING KITCHEN WASTE
LINE (GREASE LINE)[1]
32 GRAVITY CLEAN-OUT AND BACKWATER
VALVE[1]
INDUSTRIAL BACKWATER
VALVE (SPEARS MODEL S475P
FOR 4") 8" I.D. VALVE BOX
(CHRISTY MODEL F08)
41 12,000 GALLON 10' DIAMETER FIBERGLASS
GREASE AND SEPTIC TANK[1][2] XERXES
51 5,470 GALLON GREASE INTERCEPTOR (FIRST
COMPARTMENT OF ITEM 4) XERXES
61 6,000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK (SECOND
COMPARTMENT OF ITEM 4) XERXES
71 12,000 GALLON 10' DIAMETER FIBERGLASS
EQUALIZATION TANK[2] 10,500 GALLONS
WORKING EQUALIZATION VOLUME
XERXES
8 1 DUPLEX PUMP SYSTEM[1][2] ORENCO BIOTUBE PUMP
SYSTEM
92 TREATMENT TANK[1][2] MICROSEPTEC ES25 IN
PARALLEL
10 1 1,500 GALLON 6' DIAMETER FIBERGLASS
D0SING TANK[2] XERXES
11 1 DUPLEX PUMP SYSTEM[1][2] ORENCO BIOTUBE PUMP
SYSTEM
12 4 AIR COMPRESSOR[1][2] MICROSEPTEC
13 1
REMOTE TELEMETRY CONTROL UNIT
DEDICATED COMMUNICATION AND POWER AS
OUTLINED IN MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION
GUIDELINES.[1][2]
MICROSEPTEC
14 1
MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH
MAIN POWER CONNECTION TO TREATMENT
SYSTEM AND PORTABLE GENERATOR
CONNECTION WITH QUELARC GENERATOR
RECEPTACLE.
IF BACKUP POWER IS PROVIDED TO FACILITY
MAIN FEED SHALL BE CONNECTED TO
BACKUP POWER.
QUELARC CONNECTOR PYLE
MODEL:
JRE-3100 (2-POLE 3-WIRE)
JRE-4100 (3-POLE 3 WIRE)
15 24 DISPERSAL FIELD CLEANOUTS
16 1 VENT ASSEMBLY[1][2] ORENCO
17 8 6" OBSERVATION PIPE AND AIR/VACUUM
RELIEF
6" DIA PERFORATED PIPE WITH
8" I.D. VALVE BOX AND GRATE
(CHRISTY MODEL F08)
[1] ALL PLUMBING APPURTENANCES AND WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT LOCAL, COUNTY, AND STATE PLUMBING CODES. APPURTENANCES AND WORK INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO;
CONNECTION TO BUILDING PLUMBING, VENTILATION, ISOLATION, BACKWATER VALVES, CLEANOUTS, AND FITTINGS.
[2] ALL ELECTRICAL APPURTENANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR,
CONTROL PANELS, CONTACTORS, FLOATS, PUMPS, DISCONNECTS, AND COMMUNICATION
DEVICES SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT LOCAL, COUNTY, AND STATE ELECTRICAL CODE AND CURRENT NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. CONDUIT AND CONDUCTOR RUNS AND SIZING SHOWN ON PLAN ARE FOR ALIGNMENT AND COST ESTIMATION. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SPECIFY ALL ELECTRICAL APPURTENANCES. CONTROL AND POWER CONDUCTORS SHALL BE PLACED IN
SEPARATE CONDUIT
PIPING SCHEDULE
TAG DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION
GSL PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER LINE 4" SCH40 PVC
PEL PROPOSED PUMPED EFFLUENT LINE 2" SCH80 PVC
KWL PROPOSED KITCHEN WASTE LINE 4" SCH40 PVC
PAL PROPOSED AIR COMPRESSOR LINE 1" SCH80 PVC
PVL PROPOSED AIR VENT LINE 4" SCH40 PVC
RCRC RECIRCULATION RETURN LINE 11
2" SCH80 PVC
LFH DISPERSAL FIELD HEADER 11
2" SCH80 PVC
LFL DISPERSAL FIELD LATERAL 11
4" SCH80 PVC
PROPOSED PUMPED EFFLUENT FOR
CONNECTION FROM 22969 OWTS TO
DEDICATED 100% EXPANSION AREA FOR
22969 PCH
2 - 2" SCH80 PVC
GSL
PEL
KWL
PAL
PVL
RCRC
LFH
LFL
SETBACK REDUCTIONS
COMPONENT SITE ELEMENT CODE
REQUIREMENT ACTUAL
TANK SITE WALL 5'-0" 3'-4"
TANK SITE WALL 5'-0" 3'-2"
TANK SITE WALL 5'-0" 4'-9"
DISPERSAL
FIELD CURB 5'-0" 1'-6"
LP LP LP LP LP LP
P LP LP L LP LP
PL PL PL PL
LP
PL
LP
25 85
80 75
70 65
B-5
TP-2 TP-3/B-2
TP-5
TP-4/B-3
TP-8 TP-7
TP-6/B-4
TP-1/B-1
TH-2
TH-4
TH-1
TH-3
EE
PVLPVL PVL PVL PVL PAL PAL PAL PAL PAL PAL PAL
AREA DEDICATED TO
22969 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
100% EXPANSION DISPERSAL FIELD
3,600 FT²
8'-0" 5'-0"
4'-0"
3'-2"
3'-4"
8'-9"
1'-6"
4'-9"
SEWER SEWER
SEWER SEWER
36'-8"
PROPERTY LINE
CODE SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 5'-0" CODE SETBACK
STRUCTURE 5'-0"
CODE SETBACK
STRUCTURE 8'-0"
CODE SETBACK
STRUCTURE 5'-0"
CODE SETBACK
STRUCTURE 8'-0"
CODE SETBACK
TANK 5'-0"
CODE SETBACK
TANK 5'-0"
STUB-OUT
2-2" SCH80 PVC
PIPES FOR 22969 PCH
EXPANSION AREA
STUB-OUT
2-2" SCH80 PVC
PIPES FOR 22969 PCH
EXPANSION AREA
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFL LFL
LFH
LFL LFL
LFH LFH LFH LFH
LFH
100% EXPANSION FIELD
INSTALLED
SAND CATEGORY
FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,540 FT²
DESIGN FLOW: 1,700 GPD
LOADING RATE: 1.11 GPSFD
DISPERSAL FIELD
SAND CATEGORY
FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,540 FT²
DESIGN FLOW: 1,700 GPD
LOADING RATE: 1.11 GPSFD
SEWER
SEWER SEWER
SEWER
SEWER
SEWER
SEWER
SEWER
PL PL PL
SURVEY PROFILE
(SEE THE GENERAL NOTE FOR FULL TEXT) ANY REMAINING FILL MATERIAL AND ANY BEACH SAND
SEDIMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE REDUCED PERMEABILITY FROM EXISTING LEACH FIELD OPERATIONS
ENCOUNTERED BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPOSED LEACH FIELD OR ANY MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEACH FIELD THAT IS NOT CATEGORIZED AS BEACH SAND DEPOSITS
SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO THE LEVEL OF THE NATIVE BEACH SAND DEPOSITS AND REPLACED WITH DOUBLE- WASHED SAND.
Tm
Qsw
Qb
Qb
Af
Tm
B-5
-20
-10
NAVD88 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
22.0 NAVD 88
FINISH GRADE
18.0 NAVD 88
BOTTOM DISPERSAL FIELD
10.0 NAVD 88
GROUNDWATER OBSERVED
06/28/1987
7.5 NAVD 88
GROUNDWATER OBSERVED
08/27/2007
36'-8"
8'-7"
2 0 40' 80'
SCALE: 1" =40'-0"
06-2024 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE OF CALIFORN
C I V I L
IA
EXP
OJ HNN. Y A ROSLA SK
60149 I
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 1/20/23
226
!~ ~{`f~~ Ci o 1~7alibu
~'. ~, 23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 °~~~~'' (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org ~~~~'~V~.O ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RE~FV1~ 2e2o~~
REFERRAL SHEET ~~//~,~~
Fpl:
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator DATE: ~~~~~~%~ FROM: City of Malibu Planning Department
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT /CONTACT: Joseph Lezama, Burdge and_ Associates Architects APPLICANT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT PHONE #:
APPLICANT FAX #:
APPLICANT EMAIL:
24911 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu,. CA 90265_.
(310) 456-5905
[email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Motel, Grading, Retaining Walls, NAOWTS.
Previously proposed as a new commercial
building.
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
v Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheets) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheets) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
OWTS Plot Plan: ❑ NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) ❑ REQUIRED (not attached)
~~ ~ ,ter
__ _ __- ~--~~~ ~`
Signature Date
Rev 141008
227
~~ A-1,~~
• •
~ J
~~~, ~ . ~ Ci tY of Malibu
~~I environmental Health .Environmental Sustainability Department ''~"'~ ~ 23825 Stuart Ranch Road ~ Malibu, California • 90265-4861 I~~ ~~~'~ 1 Phone (310) 456-2489 ~ Fax (310) 456-3356 ~ ~vww.malibucit.~ orb '~i~r ~ ~.Y-~ " ~~1~
pnt~fotl 1'larch~'~~
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Joseph Lezama
(name and email Burdge &Associates
address) [email protected]
Project Address: 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu Inn Motel Malibu, CA 90265 _ _.
Planning Case No : CDP 09-067 Revised
Project Description: .New motel, grading, retaining walls new AOWTS Date of Review March 8 2019
Reviewer Melinda Talent Si 9 _.. nature ~~~~~~
Contact Information
_ _ ...
Phone: 310 456 2489 ext.364 Email. mtalent malibucity.or
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
..Architectural Plans: Burdge &Associates dated 6-8-18
Grading Plans.. Grading and Drainage plan by GeoWorks dated 5-8-18 OWTS Plan: Ensitu Engineering dated 5-30-18, Revised_ plan dated 2-19 19 OWTS Report: Ensitu Engineering dated 7.26-18, 2-21-19
Geology Report: __Geologic Map by GeoConcepts dated May 2018 Miscellaneous: Reduced setback letter by GeoConcepts dated 1-24-19. Reduced setback letter by Kurt _. -
Fischer Structural Engineering Dated 1-28-19. __P __ _ _ _ _ _ Previous Reviews: EH Com lete Conformance Review dated 4-9-16 for CDP 09-067, commercial office buildin .Revised EH Conformance review dated 6-25-18.
REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: ~ CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The listed conditions of Planning stage conformance review and plan check review comments shall be addressed prior to plan check approval. ❑ CONFORMANCE REVIEW INCOMPLETE for the City of Malibu LIP and MMC.
The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to _ _ conformance review completion. _ __ _ __
OWTS Plot Plan: ❑ NOT REQUIRED
Based upon the project description and submittal information noted above, a conformance review was completed for a new advanced onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) proposed to serve the onsite wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the subject property. The proposed advanced OWTS meets the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project consultants and, prior to final approval, provide a coordinated submittal addressing all conditions for final approval and plan check items.
The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the subject development project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval
l _\8nv H filth Review L.og\Project ReviewU~acif c Coast I hvy~22959 PCH -Surfrider Plaza\CDP 09-0G7~I9030R 2?959 PC! I_CUP U9-(~7 Rerised_GIi Conf Rev CRC.docs Recycled Naper 228
of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
March 8, 2019
of the project OWTS Plot Plan and associated construction drawings (during Building Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.
Conditions of Planning Conformance Review for Building Plan Check Approval:
1) Final Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Plot Plan: A final plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The plans must include all necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property, and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS Plot Plan shall show essential features of the OWTS, existing improvements, and proposed/new improvements. The plot must fit on an 11" x 17" sheet leaving a 5" left margin clear to provide space for aCity-applied legend. If the plan scale is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or alf necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18" x 22" for review by Environmental Health). 2) Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the OWTS.
All plans and reports must be signed by a City Registered OWTS Designer and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted with the designer's signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).
The final OUVTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms.
Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design.
b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed. type of treatment systems) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter, ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and the design basis for engineered systems.
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system's geometric dimensions and basic construction features.
Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any Pale 2 of 5 ~^~"`;_-1
'I`\Env 1-Iealth Review Log\Project Review\Pacific Cuast }iwy~22959 PChI -Surfrider Plaui\CDP 09-067~I90303. 22959 PCI 1_CDP 09-W7 Revised_EH Conf Rev_CRC.Aocc Recycled Pnper 229
of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
March 8, 2019
unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsfl. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics. e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the 01/VfS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11" x 17" plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18" x 22" for review by Environmental Health).
Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
3) Building Pians: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 4) Traffic-Rated Slab Plan(s): All project traffic rated slab plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
5) Notice of Decision: The final onsite wastewater treatment system plans shall include the Conditions of Approval sections of the Notice of Decision (NOD) from the Planning Department. 6) Architect /Engineer Certification for Reduction in Setbacks to Buildings or Structures:
All proposed reductions in setbacks from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures or other features less than those shown in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 15.42 must be supported by letters from the project consultants. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. The construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setback must be approved by City of Malibu Building Safety prior to Environmental Health final approval. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted for Building Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. All plans must show the location of onsite wastewater treatment system components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable).
Structures —All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 15.42) must be supported by a letter from the project Structural Engineer and a letter from the project Soils Engineer (i.e., a Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the onsite wastewater treatment system, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the setback is reduced.
T:U-iry Health Review Log\Projec;t Review\Pacific Coast H~ry~22959 PCH - SurBider Plaza\CDP 09-O6TI90318. 22959 p('Fi_CDP 09-tNi7 Revised EH Conf Rev_G2C.doc~ Recycled Pt~per 230
Citv of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
March 8, 2019
Buildings —All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 15.42) also must be supported by a letter from the project Architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California licensed architect, then the required Architect's certification may be supplied by an Engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setback to the wastewater system; in this case the Engineer must include in the letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback(s), then the Architect (or Engineer) must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Plan Check. 7) Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted. 8) Operations &Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed advanced OWTS.
9) Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed advanced onsite wastewater treatment system shall be submitted prior to Environmental Health approval. Please note only original "wet signature" documents are acceptable. 10) Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Covenant: A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder's Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Malibu Municipal Code. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Please submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder. 11) Covenant to Forfeit 100% Expansion Effluent Disposal Area: A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder's Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that (1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100% expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal fields) or seepage pit(s)) and (2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through an operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any buildings) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair. Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department. Please submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.
12) OWTS Monitoring Plan: A monitoring and
Environmental Health Administrator for approval.
the OWTS designer and include a monitoring ply
maintenance plan must be submitted to the
The plan must adhere to the recommendations of
n, maintenance schedule, sampling program and
"f16ry f-lealth Review Log\ProjecUteview\Pacific Coast Hwy~22959 PCH - Surf}ider Plaza\CDP 09-0G7~I90308_22959 PCI-!_CDP 09-067 Revised_EI-1 Conf Rev CRC.docs Itecydecl Naper 231
of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 09-067 Revised
22959 Pacific Coast Hwy
March 8, 2019
corrective actions if the OWTS fails to function as designed or meet the prescribed standards outlined in the monitoring plan.
13) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
14) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
15) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
16) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
17) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. 18) Waste Discharge Requirements: Submit wastewater plans, and all necessary supporting forms and reports, to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 320 W. 4th St., Los Angeles, CA 90013, (213) 576-6600, to assure compliance with the California Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan). RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements shall be obtained and submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. .~.
If you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
"I~1Env Health Review LogU'roject 12evieevAPacific Coast 1-IwyL2959 pCH - Sw~6~ider PlazaVCUP 09-06T 190308_22959 PCH_CDP 09-067 Reviud_EI-I Conf Rev_CRC Boca Recycled Paper 232
~RF~E~. g~~ {c~~ o9-a67) x~vr~~n
22 9a 9~ FAC Z F'I C: C~CtAST H I C:NWAY SUPERSEDES ALL FfREV IQUS r~.isv, cam. 9a2~5 ~F~~vx~.s AI
t+Y1TE C. with 2 Q Roams (N)
RESThiTR1aNT: 229 FixtLire Units (N)
DfiSIGN FL[7r1: 445G ga1Jd
,gg d~-5,000 t>allon Total} Xerxes
~~~eE~os: 3 G~~art.~nt t~~ : ~x~
EQUSLIZATION 4,700 Gallon - grease cc~gartment
Tp~ A ; 5,200 Gallon - equal.izat an compartment
4,200 Callan -den trificatian compartment
TRE~'I24E2dT 4-7,544 [:anon (fatal. 3D,360 Gall.an) 2~is.croSepTee TAt1K: ES 25 with ITV d.s nf~c.tion (Nj
DOSING TANK: 5,000 Ga12on Xerxes {H)
ACTIVE: 1-25OD ~q.ft. Dra nfield with Oren co .air vent (Nj ~u~rvkE : xon~
PERC RATE: 5anc~ Category (x.,56 gg~sfcj
DESIGWEI2: 3ahn Yaraslask (kCE 6(1144}
REFERENCE: Ensitn Engineering, Inc. - CIYtPS Besign Report dated 4-12-I4; 3-3-15; 2-25-16; Revised re~art
dated 7-26-18 GeoGoncegts - GeatecYrncal Regort
dated 2-27-12; ~2-4-14: 5-16-15: Revised. report
dated 6-2d-i8, 2-2i-19
Pic7f'ES
I. This con€ormance rev ere is Car a now motel and new advanced ansite wastewater treatment. system. (Lhr~TS) . The nea OiiTS shown conforms to the r~c~zirements of the City of ~Ial.ibu Afiunieipal Cade (Mfg) ar►d the Local Coastal ~rogram (L~GPj.
2. This conformances revievr relates manly Eu the ~inimnm ~~1T~YY~:3 aE the t~fC, and the I.CP, end clues not include an evaluation vF any geological. or other gxxtential problems, vrhi.ch may r use ~,n alternative methot3 of wastewater treatment,
3. This conformances revievr is valid for one year, r~r until ~4C, and/or
1..CP, andfo'r AdministraGiv~ Policg changes rentle.r it noncomplying.
4. 'Fhe [7n't'S musf. be maintained in accordance with the monitoring Plan contained in tiie ~YtTS Final design report b~ Ensitu Engineering dated 2-22-.~~.
CITY OF MALIBU
ENVIRONME]~rTAI., ~i ~~`t~AINABII,ITY DFPT.
ENV(RON?~~It~'~"i"'AL. HEALTH
CONFC~ ~ f~~ ~~ :' ~- REVIEW
SIGNATURE: c `~~r
fp ~G`%~~ ~ DATE
THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL. FINAL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS SCALE: i" •d0'-0" .
~[I~ GryafHili4µ 1
t SITE PLAN
WbwW Fa Ps FIo.+14~1he ~eqh
the Dacr~ aa~ T PnG Flow Gph+How µi~p~~ 6~Vd~r BODs Wd. B( 1 6cd utl
BwIQu~
Motdropcnm SO gJ/bcd space (1~ lO betlsprn 1.300 210 2.16 W,~ _ ..--
~~an....~e
~~~~
IO VVV~~
B. noeiwd, S)PeeP~e S10 600 2.66
Z Here Food PrcP aN vhdat Knchm
w,,..
TO +U
~
1 7 E « 60 l00 0.16
~0 aV 1 5)P e 510 l00 1.13
3 WWlha pay 30 +V w I 6 bee 110 l00 D.11
O/m Spa.utl Q~~ i28aVP~~ ~1 ~~~ S]Pavpla 1.166 l00 2.92 MIri.O.~ ZO ay I 1 7 o n 60 J00 0.16
~;rr.
3 ~tl Bdlmn
lieuekegwn. IOgal/a.plo~w (I~ vEnp~o~a 90 )00 O.i3 Opa~tlwa Mbeaaunes Mwtr. SuR
we' tad Avon
IoW PWc rd Oaign Fbw 1.056.00 eoo, ~Wa. aou,
310 1050
Expcacd /wa~yc Fbw Pe~la~~g Facmr I.5 2.709.00 3~0 6.99
SETBACK REDUCTIONS
COMPONENT SITE ELEMENT REQUIRED ACTUAL ~
O OISPERS~I SITE WAIL 8' S'.0' FIELD
O DISPERSAL SITE WAIL d' S'-5'
~ '
FIELD
- -'~ YY- -O- ~- --s- -~p
- riar-arc~N mav~
~,~~
~ ~ b
~.~
uwerE
- --~~ ~-
Pf[OP.Y.£D ~.1m9 Pf20P~ED 57QL~D6 Pf~fi~9E0 4.100 GALLON N.LiDLPG FlBEFd'iLAA9 GIEA9E FI~E/Xd.U9 DU'LE% I.~~OXIG TA1~OC
TAJK (~W~9J i.YA'1~W~5) Ed1AL1IAT10N - SY9TETt RM' idl~K l~RXE9) O
i , ~~ ~j _...1' ~1• r. ..
179431
PCN ~
_~ ~ _ TO
aros,+w~ s~oet i~£~m~
saoo~, tav~ao~w.r,~p.k ~saw.»a., ~..~
tmopbu »v..tWae.. ~~~.n.adrrv,-~
~IfOetm~ ]31Mv~wa 1.2~OI.~we~em
IoM lBCD~ [~~x)IO nrABtY ~ 'rvpE '6Wl ~dn 1 m~BU Id.G4E0 ~gonad ~,ouv~ ~aw~~a
zsotw muaa~i.+a~ ixo p,nr~p,u
.w na. `w..~s,., ~ ,•.nog o.y~~,o.,~
nf.~ ~ .x:.. izcw' z(
'~ae4tr.c fsn tm Pv I Ia uc__
!We ~~c F511 1'dA
~ ~
]M - I9 -- ---~"IUi
-~ r«[sn i ~xo ~M w I +n
~W
GCNERAt NOES:
1. Pn10R TO COMMENCING WDRK TO /.D~NOON.IiEMO~rE, OR REVl4GE E%ISIING ONSITC WASTEWNTEft iREAiMfNI' SYSIkM (OWfS~ GOMI'ONENTS AN'OW~S ~BANDONMCNi PEflMIi' S~~PII BE 09TNNC0 FRO0.1 fllC GI IY OF MALIOV. All NVRK PERFORMED IN ME OW I'S ~UAUU~NlA[Nt, RCMUVnL, OR REPLACEMENT qRG SHRLL BE PERiORME~ IN STRICT ACCORDANCE MATH ALL APPLILFBIE FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL ENNRONMENTAL ANU OCCUPATIONAL SRFEfY PNO HEALTH REGULI TORY REOUIREMGNTS. THE OflTPIfJMENT OF ANY SUCN ftEOUIR[D PEflMIiS OR APPROVALS FOR TINS SCOPE OF IMDRK SNnll PE TNC RESPONSIOIUTV OF ME MPUGgNT ANO ~MEIR AGENTS.
1. EXISTING OWfS COA~PONENT55~UlL BE ABANDONED TIDE F.KISTING 5FP11C TMJK pNO SEEPl1GE %~SNAU BE PHOPERtY AOANOONEO PURSU~Nt TO Cltt OF MPUOU ORDINArvLE a]5, SECTION ISAO.ITO C, AND SECTON S.~O.IiO D, TITHE 1~ OF THE l05 Pt/GELES COVNtt LODE, INGORI'ORRI ING 1HE MDST CURRENT CALIFORNIA PWMBING CODE, LOCAL PLIR~AING CODE. FNO f'OUCIES. METHOD 04' ABANDONMENT SNAIL BC DETEM11NE0 BY TIFF [NGINEER ANO/OR THE OWNER'S NEFRESENTAPVE
1. SEN£R PIPE SMALL BE BEOD[OIN ACCOROaHCE W~I15PEf.IFIC/tIONS I.NU TITLE 280F THELOS ANGELES C01NItt COD[, INCORI'ORgTING TI/E MOST Clp2RENT CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PIUMOMIG CODE, IWOOROINIINCES.
~. SYSTEM COMPQYEN~S ANO MPURTENPNCES QNCIUDING CIEAN-0UTS, VENT5. 9~CK4YATER WAVES, ETC.) SIIALL BE INS~FILED IN PGCORpANCE N1TH 11TLE 3d OF THE l05 ANGELES COUNTY CODE.INfgRPORATINO TILE MOST GUflRENT CALIFORNIA I'LUMOING CODE, LOCAL YLUMBINti CODE. ANO POIJGIES.
5. ELECTRIGRL GOMPOHENTS RNO APPURTENANCES SHALL BE INSTPILED IN ACCOROPNCE KITH TTlE 2i OF THC tOS ANGELES GOUN7V LODE. INCORPORALING THE MOST GURRENf CALIFORNIA ELECTftICNI GOUE, LOCAL ELEGTRICRI CODE, Ml0 ONOINANf.ES.
G RRECdSTERED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER,UNDER THE dRECiION OF THE ONMEft, SHFLL OETEflMINE1F THE NNSTEWATER LORDING RATE 1MLl CAUSE THE EXISTING Std'E TO BECOME UNSTABLE ENSIN EN6INEEWNG INC..IS NOT A GEOTECHNICRI ENGINEERING FIRM, THEREFORE, WE CAN NOT PREDICT pNp/pR DETERMINE 7HE ST/ BIIITY OF TII~ ~XISTINO SLOPE.
]. THE PROJECTCNGIN[Cq~NG GEOLOGIST 51ir1Ll OBSERVE THEINSTALUTION OF THE TANKAND UI5PER5Al SYSTEM GOMPONENT50F 111E NOWfS (INGIUDINO BUT NOT LIMItE0 T0: (N~TANK EXCRVA710N, BEDDING, 0.ND BACNFIII (B~ SCEPAGE %TS E%CPVAIION, GONfTRUCPON, AND BAGKFILL (C~ SUBSURFgCE UI6PERSAL SYSTEM BEUDINO, FILL MATER4U, CONSTftUGIION, ANO tlACNFILL~ ANO PRONDE iME CI7V INSVECTOR NATII A FIElO MEAIORANDUM(5) OnLUMENTIN6 ANU VERIFYWG THAT THE TgNK ANO ~ISPERSRl SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED PER nrrnoveo nowrs ruNs.
HF OS PND ~ISPENSRl SYSTEMS OE5IGNRTEOl15 SAND GTEGORY: ANV REMAINING FILL MATERUI ANA B. LEAC IFl ANY 6E~C11 SAND SEdMENT MAT MIGNT HAVE REDUCED PER~IEABILIIV FROM E%ISIINC IEAGH FIELD OPERATIONS ENCOUNTERED 6ELOW TIfE OOTfOM OF THE PROPOSED IEACN FIELD OR ANY tMTERIAI ENCOUNTERED IIJ THE CONSTRUCTION Of 7HE LEACH FIEIA THl T IS NO7 CATEOOftIZEO AS DEACN SAND DEPOSITS SHFll BE EXCAVATED TO THE LEVEL OF THE NATIVE BEACH SIWOOEPO51T5 AND REPUGEU NATN ~W BIE. WASHED SAND. THE PROJECT ENGPlEERING GEOLOGIST SWlll085ERVE THE EXCAVATON OF 7HE LEACH FIELD M10 CONFIRM IN WR171Np THAT RlL THE DELETERIOUS flll Ml~ NIXJEERCH SANG MATERIhLS 9ElOW THE lCAG11 FIELD HRVE BEEN REMOVED I1N0 REPLACED IMTN CLEAN SANDAND THE LEACH fiElD W0.5 G0115TRUGTEO W ACCOROMlGE N17N THE APPROVEOOWfS MANS.
9. SUBSURFACE DRIP LINE SIIALI OC PlACEOM UNLOMPRCTE~NA11VE 601L5 RIPPED AND TITLED AMINW~M OF 18 INCHES. SOIL SHALL BE AMENDED TO BE 30%SAND, ]OX MULCH, d0% HATING OR UNOSCAPE DE516NER 6HAll BE COMACTE~ TO ROVISE CONTkFCTOR ON TYPE OF TOPSOIL TO IMPORT FOR MINIMUM BURIAL DEPTH. DISPERSAL FIELD SNALI BE PLANTED AND ESTABUSHEO PftlDq TO OCCUPANCY ENGINEER TO ~EftIFY)
10. ALLOMENSIONS ANDGRAOES SHALL BE VEWFIEO BY CONTftAGTOR PR10R iO5YSTEM INSTALUTION,BUILDING SEVER ~EPfll OR LONNELiION POINT W0.S NOT PRONUEO AND SHALL OE DETERAUNED BY GONTMGTOR PRIOR TO CONSIRUCiION
11. CONTRRCTOR TO VERIFY DEPTH ANO LOCkIION OF Bl11l01NG 5ENER CONNECTION, MINIMUM 7%SLOPE fRGN STRUCNFE TO CONNECTION POINT.
i Z. ONSITE WASTF.WATf.R TREATMENT SYSTEM SHALL OE VENTED IN ACGOROANCE W1TN TITLE IB OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, INCORPORATING THE MOST CURRENT CALIFORNIF PLUMBING CODE, LOCAL PW M81N0 CODE, AND POLICIES.
IJ. r~E OWf515 SIZED 115 FAR UNOW~RO PS fE4519LE.
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
MFGIP~ftT NUMBER
CONN[CTION 70 E%ISTING GRANtt SEKER UNES~~~
GREASE INTERCEPTOR <,70p GALLON FIRST
~ ~ COMPMTMENT Of 15,000 GAlLOH%ER%ESTRNK XERXES
EOUAlI7Al10N T/J!K 5,7dn GALLON SECOND
~ ~ COMPPRiMENT OF 15,000 CAttON%ER%E6 TANM %ER%E8
M!O%IG TANK a,700 Gr1LlON THIRD COMPMTM1IENT OF
5 ~ 15.410 GALLON %Eft%E5 TANK
%ER%E6
B 4 AIR COMPRESSOPo`~~ MICROSI
REMOTE TELEMETRY CONTItOI VNIT DEpCATEO
9 2 COMMUMCgl10N AND PONLR AS OURINE0IN MICROSI
h41NUF11CNItEft INSTAUATION GUIOEUNES!'~r
COMROt UfdT pEpICNTED COMMUNICATION RND
10 1 POWEN RS OUTLINED ~N MRNUfNCNR[R GEOFLO~
INSTAtIATtON GVIDEUNES!'~~~
~~ ~ DOSING iANK(S,WO GIU.LON, FIOEftGlA55~' XERXES
13 iZ OISPERS~L FIEIO ClEl1NOUTb
la Z VEM RSSEMBLI~'~~ URENf
[i~ NI MIMBINO111T1)I1IENMICE6MIDNORK5IULLL COMMV 4ATI WR0.ENTlOC xo COOES..wYNiTCNNICE'+RHO WOMN wuUDE. BUT ME ewTUAVlEO UILgNO PLUM01N6, VfN111R110H, ISOIATON, BPCKWRIEP VPlYE6, LlE~M011T~ ~2~ KIEtEt1ltlLNt PPP11RlENaNLES IN0.UdNa BUTNOTl11NtEO fO: CONOIpT, t1 CONdA~ PNU CONWGiOR RWS /J~D SILNo SwONN ON PLAN ME FOR WGMIENi P1lD Wsi SIiMAiI W. ElEC1RIGLL CONIRRCTOP SHALL SPECMY RLL ELE[11tlCAL RPPUHIEl1410E4CON1ROl ENO ~OVRR CONWCTORS SMNL BE PNC6OI.V SEP~fl4TE C01NUT
P(~9Ep HICA79EPfEL tNVIfdYlERVER
E9I9 FIBEI~.rLA991REARENf iM'C UMTN
4 woieo-a~cnaa
4 PidOPOSED M~CFaD8EP1EC ENvI/a~9ERVER E475 FIBEI~LA49 iREA1F~NT i?IK 11ATN r
4 l
W DISPl~LTION
~~ •I•_ GRAVITT
19iRId1i
DUPLFJt
FIBElGLil94 D09RYa ~~
BO% -~
~
fNK (XERXE9/ '+Y91FT1
PFdOP09ED MCIXJSEPIEG ENVIp79ERVLR
E9]5 PIBEIYiLA44 1REARENf T~K W TN
W D19A~FEGTIQV
P~P09E0 HIG~9EPIEC ETM~9ERVER
ESlS fIOEfCrLA59 II~AtI'EM TNK WTH ~E99 9CHEYIATIC
W Dl9o&EGt10N NO K4LE
PIPING SCHEDULE
~ TAG DESCRIPTION SPECIFICA710~
~ GSL PROPOSED GR0.VITY SEWER UNE <'SCHLO PVG
PEl PROPOSED PUMPED EFiLUENT LINE TSCHBO PVG
PK PROPOSED AIR VENT LINE C'SCH40 PVC
~ PAL PROPOSED NIi GOMPItE550R LINE 1'661190 PVC
SDF PPOPOSEO SUHSURFFCEiWSM__ IJS'SCNEO PVC
.FINAL £'Dli APPRQVAL
.r~~svEn
2/19/2019
F~9ED LEAd! FIELD
raorr+Fwr n~a: 7Hmm sF
Ho .u~om~m+ce roR
91DEUWLL AFEA
T01A4' GN
q.tea: bmo 5F
esK*LPEae our. pow proPD
LOAbRG RSTE: 156 GPfX9
_
~+
, ~ '
JOHN N. YI~ROSLASKI
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
~0~oO0Y1 B
NY~oy y
y~~nu
OOY
6F
~~~
oy
{~
•\
S
n
'q
~
U n
Z M Ii
6 ~b9
~q a O
W o u
p
_
`
4u,
V
V ~ ~ moR4 a
W u "~ N
~
u 4~
"my
a
y~t'u
zq.~~ kl t 4 b
Q
Z
o
bry
Ny
g
[^
$ ~
o ~
~ ~
a N~
`l
ail ~
V
y
~
S
O
V
(~
1 $ "Y ~~
a
N
Wf
b w 1.` ~~
w-~~
~U~
yR
m
YQ
oa4a
wsav~ .pFES5p 0
as ~$p~~~ n, "
'+`aa
~~2~YARp~l~
~
~ 60199
~
a~5aa
,~lj~
~~~ ~ grfOFCA
~c~
ZW ~q,~ ~~: P~18/EolB
~o ~b
DSSICNEO BY: AVY
DRd1IN BY: ~-
~~o~~ e; ~ .... JOfT NO. 49B-01
SHEET
I OF z
,,
~0~~I4
233
City ofMalibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
FROM: City of Malibu Planning Department
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT I CONTACT: Jose h Lezama, Burdge and Associates Architect APPLICANT ADDRESS: 24911 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu CA 90265
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 456-5905
APPLICANT FAX#:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Motel, Grading, Retaining Walls, NAOWTS. Previously proposed as a new commercial building.
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Corn liance with the conditions checked below is re uired nor to Fire De artrnent a royal.
The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment The project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review The required fire flow for this project is ~gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 2 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system.
Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required priorto Fire Department Approval Conditions below marked “not a roved” shall be corrected on the site Ian and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.
App’d Nlapp’d
Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width and grade %) as shown from the public streetto the proposed project.
Required andlor proposed Fire Department VehicularTurnaround ____ Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking Access (including grade %) ____ _____ Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates
*county of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. ~Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. 12 (0.10
SIGNATURE DATE
Additional requirementslconditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.
The Fire Prevention Engineering maybe contactedbyphone at(818) 880-O34loratthe Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday —Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00AM TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
RECEIVED
DEC ii 2Oig
PLANNING DEPT
DATE: 611112018
TO:
FROM:
234
or M~~
ti~ tl° G~ VG
:'' ~ Ci o ~7alibu
~•\:\,~ , ~ 23825 Stuart Ranch Road •Malibu, California 90265-4861 '~•••`' (3l0) 456-2489 •Fax (310) 456-3356 ~ www.malibucity.org
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: March 22, 2019 Review Log #: 3701
Site Address: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Lot/Tract/PM #: n/a Planning #: CDP 09-067
Applicant/Contact: Joseph Lezama, Joseph@buaia BPGGPC #:
Contact Phone #: 310-456-5905 Fax#: Planner: Adrian Fernandez Project Type: Revised project: New three-level Malibu Inn Motel, grading; retaining walls with soldier piles and tie-backs, subterranean parking, new a»site wastewater treatment system (OWTS)
Submittal Information
Consultants)/ReportDate(s): GeoConcepts, Inc. (Barrett, CEG 2088; Walter, RGE 2476): 10-16-18, (Current submittals) in Bolrl.) 6-20-18, 4-28-16, 9-21-15, 5-29-15, 2-26-15, 12-4-14 GeoConcepts, Inc. (Barrett, CEG 2088): 6-16-15
GeoConcepts, Inc. (Lee, CEG 2545; Haddad, RCE 69169): 6-27-12 GeoConcepts, Inc. (Sousa, CEG 1315; Walter, RGE 2476): 4-27-12, 2-27-12, 6-4-03
GeoConcepts, Inc. (Sousa, CEG 1315): ll-3-09
EnSitu Engineering, Inc. (Yaroslaski, RCE 60149): 2-21-19, 2-25-16, 3-3-15, 9-12-14
Building Plans prepared by Burdge &Associates Architects dated June 8, 2018.
Grading plans prepared by GeoWorks, Inc. dated May 8, 20l 8.
Final OWTS plans prepared by EnSitu Engineering, Inc. dated February 19, 2019.
Previous Reviews: 11-8-18; Ref: Environmental Health Review Sheets dated 3-8-19 and 6-25- 18; Ref: 5-31-16 (for new commercial development), Environmental Health Review Sheet dated April 19, 2016, 4-8-16, 7-24-15, Enviromnental Health Review Sheet dated Apri13, 2015, 4-1-15, 1-28-15, 7-24-12, 6-4-12, 12-2- 09, Geology Review Referral Sheet dated 11-5-09
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The motel development project is APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. ❑ The motel development project is NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. T11e listed `Review Comments' shall be addressed prior to approval.
Buildin_p/Gradin_q Plan-Check Review
Awaiting Buildingplan check submittal. Please respond to the listed `Building Plan-Check Stage Review Conunents' AND review and incorporate the attached `Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check' into tl~e plans.
235
of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
❑ APPROVED. from a geotechnical perspective. Please review the attached `Geotechnicai Notes for Building Plan Check' and incorporate into Building Plan-Check submittals. ❑ NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. The listed `Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments' shall be addressed prior to Building Plan-Check Stage approval.
Remarks
The referenced OWTS design report and OWTS plans were reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective. The revised project includes constructing a 7,703 square foot three-level motel with 20 lodging units, 46 parking spaces with 24 extra with stacked parking system, grading (11,752 yards of cut under structure: 837 yards of cut and 319 yards of fill non-exempt; and 12,270 yards of export), rear yard retaining walls with tie-back stabilization/soldier piles, terraces and landscaping on the rear-yard ascending slope, and a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) in the front parking area consisting of a treatment tank system and a new 2,600 square foot leach field with a design peak flow of 4,056 GPD and a design loading rate of 1.56 GPSFD with 100% expansion. A 3,600 square foot expansion dispersal field serving the Malibu Inn property at 22969 Pacific Coast Highway is proposed in the front parking area immediately east of the leach field for the proposed project.
The Consultant asserted that the proposed 20' high 1.5:1 cut slope above the western portion of the rear-yard retaining wall consists of a trim of the thin layer of fill and colluvium on tl~e slope, and that the surficial stability would not be reduced by the cut slope. In addition, the Consultant has recommended 4' of freeboard on the top ofthe rear-yard retaining wall as well as a debris fence on the slope to protect the development from surficial instabilities, should they occur. The recommendations by the Consultant in this regard appear to be reasonable.
Building/Grading Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:
1. As per the plans, access to the site is from the adjacent" property. Granting access from the adjacent property owner (recording of an easement) is apre-requisite to establish the feasibility of the project.
2. The freeboard on the rear yard retaining wall will designed to provide the Code-required setbacks from ascending slopes. The freeboard should be designed as an impact wall with a minimum equivalent fluid pressure of 125 pcf, based on the Consultant's recommendations.
3. The proposed location and extent (vertical and Horizontal) of the impact fence should be depicted on the grading plans and cross-sections. Specifications for the installation of the fence should be provided by the manufacturer and incorporated, as appropriate, with the project documents. Details of the fence installation at the eastern and western property lines should be designed and outlined to prevent debris deflecting into adjacent properties.
4. Based on assumptions by the Consultant in calculating the lateral spreading resistance, pile spacing should not exceed two times the diameter of piles.
5. Please provide to the City an as-built geotechnical report documenting the installation of the pile and soldier pile foundation elements for the motel and retaining walls. The report should document total depth, depth into bedrock, depth to groundwater, and include a map with the final locations of the piles.
Please include this comment as a note on the Building plans.
6. Section 7.4 of the City's geoteclmical guidelines requires. a minimum thickness of 10 mils for vapor barriers beneath slabs-on-grade. The Project Geotechnical Engineer has recommended that the vapor barrier be a minimum thickness of l 5 mils and conform to ASTM E1745 Class A requirements. Building plans shall reflect the Consultant's recommendation.
7. The following note must appear on tl~e foundation plans: "Tests shall be performed prior to pouring foundations to evaluate cor~~osivity of the supporting soils. Foundation plans should be ~°eviewed by the (MAL5146) - 2 -
236
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
Civil or- Structural Engineer and revised, if necessary."
8. It appears from the cross sections that tl~e soldier pile walls may be integral to the proposed structure(s).
The Consultant should work with the structural engineer to ensure that pile deflections do not induce catastrophic failure or induce other negative impacts to the structure(s).
9. The grading plans need to include specific details for tiebacks including unbonded, bonded, and minimum lengths, bar type and size, and procedures for proof and performance testing. The proof and performance testing should be under the observation of the project geotechnical consultant, who must document the results and submit the observations to the City for review and state that the tiebacks were installed per the approved plans and specifications.
10. Prior to final approval of the project, a» as-built report documenting the installation of the retaining wall tie-back systems shall be prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The report shall include, as a minimum, the locations and details of the installations such as tieback lengths, dates of installation, and test results of tension capacities. The report shall include a statement that the retaining walls and tie-back systems were installed under the observation of the geologist and geotechnical engineer ofrecord and that the installations conformed to the approved plan and specifications. Any modifications to the plans necessary for the conditions encountered during the construction must be documented in the final report.
Please include this comment as a note on the plans.
11. A letter should be provided by the Project Structural Engineer indicating that they are aware of the anticipated displacements associated with the installation ofthe soil nail walls and, given the potential for some slope displacement, the proposed design is adequate to provide slope support required by the CBC (e.g., safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life).
12. Two sets of final grading, retaining wall, soldier pile, tie-back, and motel plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING- AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnica}Consultant's recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and wet stamped and manually signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants' recommendations and items in this review sheet over the counter at City Hall.
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.
Engineering Geology Review by: J ~~
Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-30-20 Dat
Engineering Geology Reviewer (310-456-2489, x306)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.
Leo yr~a icy, [ c.
`~
~j/9b/Y81`/NNPvtS~eNYdMW'hrr~.a....•.-..`-,,..
~aT~~?i~, SHIRES AI D ~SSt~CIATES, ~iC_ Applied Earth Sciences tieatechniml EngtaerrJi~g & Engineer7ny Geology Cansulfann CO2~3SLZ,TTNG ENGINEERS t1NB C3EOLOCiLS3'S
(MAL5146) — 3 —
237
City ofl~7alibu
- GEOTECHNICAL -
NOTES FOR BUILDING PLAN-CHECK
The following standard items should be incorporated into Building Plan-Check submittals, as appropriate:
1. One set of grading, retaining wall, OWTS, soldier results of all density tests as well as a map pile, and office building plans, incorporating the depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density Geotechnical Consultants recommendations and tests, locations and elevations of all removal items in this review sheet, must be submitted to bottoms, locations and elevations of all keyways City geotechnical staff for review. Additional and back drains, and locations and elevations of review comments may be raised at that time all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. Geologic that may require a response. conditions exposed during grading must be depicted on an as-built geologic map. This
2. Show the name, address, and phone number of comment must be included as a note on the the Geotechnical Consultants) on the cover sheet grading plans. of the Building and grading Plans.
3. Include the following note on the Foundation
Plans: "All .foundation excavations must be
observed and approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant priorto placement ofreinforcing steel."
4. Include the following .note on Grading and
Foundation Plans: "Subgrade soils shall be tested
for Expansion Index prior to pouring footings or
slabs; Foundation Plans shall be reviewed and
revised by the Geotechnical Consultant, as
appropriate."
5. The Foundation Plans for the proposed structures
shall clearly depict the embedment material and
minimum depth ofembedmentforthefoundations
in accordance with the Geotechnical Consultants
recommendations.
6. Show the onsite wastewater treatment system on
the grading and building plans.
7. Please contact the Building and Safety
Department regarding the submittal requirements
for a grading and drainage plan review.
Retaining Walls (As Applicable)
1. Show retaining wall backdrain and backfill design,
as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant,
on the Plans.
Retaining walls separate from a residence require
separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety
Department for permit information. One set of
retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City
for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional
concerns may be raised at that time which may
require a response by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and applicant.
Grading Plans (as Applicable)
1. Grading Plans shall clearly depict the limits and
depths of overexcavation, as applicable.
2. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built
compaction report prepared . by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the
City for review. The report must include the
238
PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO:
City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
REVISED DATE 06/22/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Joseph Lezama, Burdge and Associates Architects APPLICANT ADDRESS: 24911 Pacific Coast Highway
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 456-5905
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Motel, Grading, Retaining Walls, NAOWTS.
Previously proposed as a new commercial
building.
Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.
The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.
SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
7/16/20
239
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09-067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09- 067.doc Recycled Paper
City of Malibu
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Nicole Benyamin, Assistant Civil Engineer
Date: July 16, 2020
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy CDP 09-067 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.
Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained.
Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. This project proposes to construct a new driveway and drain outlet within Caltrans’ right-ofway. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for the proposed work.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
2. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
• Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
• Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
• Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources
240
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09- 067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09-067.doc Recycled Paper
3. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with the City’s LIP Section 8.3. A note shall be placed on the project that addresses this condition.
4. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
• Public Works Department General Notes
• The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks). • The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated.
• The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan.
• If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
• If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
• Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
• Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
5. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMP’s shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, postconstruction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.
STORMWATER
6. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing
241
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09- 067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09-067.doc Recycled Paper Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.
7. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A).
The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.
8. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
• Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
• Source Control BMP’s
• Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. • Drainage Improvements
• A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
242
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09- 067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09-067.doc Recycled Paper • A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
• The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works Department and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and or building plans.
The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.
MISCELLANOUS
9. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
10.The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
• The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
• There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and • The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
11.The applicant shall prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) per the City of Malibu TIA Guidelines. The TIA shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading and or building permits. The applicant shall also be 243
5 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09- 067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09-067.doc Recycled Paper required to construct the applicable mitigation measures recommended in the TIA. The traffic mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first building.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
12.All commercial developments shall be designed to control the runoff of pollutants from structures, parking and loading docks. The following minimum measures shall be implemented to minimize the impacts of commercial developments on water quality:
• Proper design of loading and unloading docks.
i. Cover loading/unloading dock areas or design drainage to minimize run-on and runoff of storm water
ii. Direct connections to storm drains from depressed loading/unloading docks are prohibited.
• Properly design Repair/Maintenance Bays
i. Repair/maintenance bays must be indoors or designed to prohibit storm water runoff or contact with storm water runoff.
ii. Repair/maintenance bays shall be designed to capture all wash water, leaks, and spills. Connect drains to a sump for collection and disposal. Direct connection of the repair/maintenance bays to the storm drain is prohibited.
Obtain an Industrial waste discharge permit if required. • Properly Design Vehicle/Equipment Wash Areas
i. Self-contained and/or covered wash areas shall be equipped with a clarifier or other pretreatment facility and properly connected to a sanitary sewer. • Properly designed Parking lots (5,000 square feet of impervious surface or 25 parking spaces.)
i. Minimize impervious surfacing for parking area.
ii. Infiltrate runoff before it reaches a storm drain system. iii. Treat to remove oil and petroleum hydrocarbons at parking lots that are heavily used.
iv. Ensure adequate operation and maintenance of treatment systems particularly sludge and oil removal and system fouling and plugging prevention control. • RESTAURANTS – Properly design Equipment/accessory wash areas i. Install self-contained wash area, equipped with grease trap, and properly connected to Sanitary Sewer.
ii. If the Wash area is located outdoors, it must be covered, paved, have secondary containment and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. • TRASH STORAGE AREAS
244
6 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/22959 PCH/CDP 09- 067/6.18.20 Plan Submittal/COA 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 09-067.doc Recycled Paper i. Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area.
ii. Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.
• OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAGE
i. Materials with the potential to contaminate storm water must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes or curbs. ii. The storage areas must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills.
iii. The storage area must have a root or awning to minimize collection of storm water within the secondary containment area.
13.Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.
14.Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit a PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.
245
PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW FOR TRAFFIC
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO: Public Works Department
Planning Division REVISED DATE 06/08/2020
JOB ADDRESS: 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Joseph Lezama, Burdge and Associates Architect APPLICANT ADDRESS: 24911 Pacific Coast Highway
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 456-5905
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Motel, Grading, Retaining Walls, NAOWTS.
Previously proposed as a new commercial
building.
Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 09-067
TO: Planning Division and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department Traffic Engineering
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.
The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the planning process
The project does require a parking study.
The project does not require a parking study.
The project requires a traffic impact analysis.
A site circulation plan is required.
A parking plan is required.
SIGNATURE DATE
Rev 101014
6/16/20
Planning review outstanding for project plans (conditions of approval). Please submit a copy of the latest project plans. Make sure to include the Civil sheets. 246
247
248
249
ATTACHMENT 4
250
251
ATTACHMENT 5
Attachment 5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Available at:
https://www.malibucity.org/810/Malibu-Inn-Motel
252
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 269-1124
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Serious Drought.
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
April 14, 2021
Ms. Adrian Fernandez, Principle Planner
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Malibu Inn Motel
Vic. LA-1 PM 46.14
SCH # 2021020396
GTS # LA-2021-03506AL-MND
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
This letter supersedes our letter dated March 17, 2021 as OPR website provided incorrect project document. Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed Project is to construct a new 7,693 square foot motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, grading, retaining walls, landscaping and a new onsite wastewater treatment system.
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Senate Bill 743 (2013) has been codified into CEQA law. It mandates that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed developments be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts. As a reminder, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the standard transportation analysis metric in CEQA for land use projects after the July 1, 2020 statewide implementation date. You may reference The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) website for more information. http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/
This development should incorporate multi-modal and complete streets transportation elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. Prioritizing and allocating space to efficient modes of travel such as bicycling and public transit can allow streets to transport more people in a fixed amount of right-of-way.
253
Ms. Adrian Fernandez
April 14 2021
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets and other traffic calming measures. Please note the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the road diet treatment as a proven safety countermeasure, and the cost of a road diet can be significantly reduced if implemented in tandem with routine street resurfacing.
Also, Caltrans has published the VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 20, 2020 and Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, prepared dated December 18, 2020.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office-of-smart-mobility-climatechange/sb-743 Overall, the environmental report should include a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) to ensure all modes are well served by planning and development activities. This includes reducing single occupancy vehicle trips, ensuring safety, reducing vehicle miles traveled, supporting accessibility, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The study has evaluated a few alternatives regarding on-site circulation associated with internal access to the adjacent site from the Pacific Coast Highway. Alternative 3 is recommended by Caltrans since it will always maintain the internal access with no access restriction between two adjacent sites. The new access or driveway to the proposed site will be restricted to right turn only movements (egress). "Right Turn Only" signs (R3- 5R) and pavement arrow markings will be installed to prohibit left-turn egress at project driveway as well as the restaurant driveway adjacent to the property line.
Please be reminded that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit including a construction management plan from Caltrans when the driveway construction is at State Right-of-way. Any modifications to State facilities must meet all mandatory design standard and specifications.
Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water.
Additionally, discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities (SR 1) without a storm water management plan.
For this project, transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, will require a transportation permit from Caltrans. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods and idle time not to exceed 10 minutes. 254
Ms. Adrian Fernandez
April 14 2021
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # LA-2021-03506AL-MND.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
email: State Clearinghouse
Sincerely,
255
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
1 MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE
TO: Adrian Hernandez, Principal Planner
FROM: Malibu Open Space Alliance by Charlotte Frieze
RE: Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
DATE: April 22, 2021
“The CV-1 District is intended to provide for visitor serving uses, including motels and bed and breakfast inns, which serve visitors and residents that are designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.”
It is not clear how this project benefits the residents of Malibu. Nor how it is designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environment. A project that requires this number of variances is not one that is respectful of Malibu’s residents, its rural character and natural environmental setting and its Malibu Building Codes.
Malibu has building codes and guidelines for the purpose of steering the development within the City. The City Planning Department should be working to benefit Malibu residents and insist that developers design to meet these codes.
Malibu’s Mission and Vision Statements have been ignored by the Planning Department in their review of this project. This project is far from residential in scale. It accelerates urbanization in the center of Malibu.
If City staff were working to prevent the urbanization of Malibu, they would have recognized that the proposed project is out of scale with central Malibu. Malibu instated codes to prevent super sized structures to over shadow the low, beach community type buildings for which Malibu is known. For instance the neighboring Chabad building and the Casa Escobar are both under 18 feet high.
The Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the repeat of the overpowering County approved clock tower.
The total effect of the Malibu Inn Motel when combined with the clock tower building is to create a concrete canyon where before there was a naturally sloping coastal bluff. This is appropriate for a large city not a coastal destination that attracts tourists for its rural character and natural environmental setting.
How could the City staff not recognize that not only does the FAR exceed the allowable FAR, but the height has been miscalculated as well? The height should have been calculated from grade making this structure 46 feet to the top 256
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
2 of the elevator shaft not the allowable 28 feet. In actuality this project is a twostory motel with a one-story garage and a 4th floor pool deck that is serviced by an elevator and surrounded by a 36-42” high guardrail. The so-called subterranean parking is only 4 feet below grade with most of the parking above grade.
The property currently meets the adjacent properties at grade. The renderings illustrate the walls required to retain the slope on the sides as well as behind the structure. Whereas the sidewalk currently meets the grade flush, the outdoor parking is a car height above and requires a sloped driveway for entry. This does not demonstrate a project that is trying to fit into the community as required by CV-1: “designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.” This project is instead a dominating presence especially when combined with the overpowering retaining wall built into the hillside.
It is also more difficult for a car or delivery vehicle to make the turn off PCH up a slope. This could cause back ups on PCH in an already congested area. In addition the slope could become a skateboarders dream.
Malibu has a distinctive character dominated by its mountains and bluffs that descend to PCH. The developer seemingly ignores the site’s existing geological restraints by proposing to construct a 56.5-foot high retaining wall that cuts off the toe of the sloping natural coastal bluff.
The coastal bluffs give Malibu its character. How can the City permit cutting into the face of a coastal bluff in the center of town? This is not “consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting”.
This is an unstable bluff in a seismically active area. Malibu is known for its heavy rains and mudslides. What studies have been made to confirm the continued stability of the hillside once the project cuts into the existing slope to construct the retaining wall? What studies have been made to ensure the stability of the residential structure perched above this site? The Malibu code allows for 1000 cu yds. of grading. The resulting cut and fill should be balanced and remain on site and not be exported. Grading into the bluff is not exempt. The Malibu Inn Motel project proposes 12,649 cu yds. of cut into a natural bluff. This is an amount they cannot reuse on the limited site.
Hauling this amount of cut would require over a thousand truckloads each containing 10 cu yds. To say this would disrupt traffic and business in a key tourist area across from the renowned Malibu pier would be an understatement.
By code retaining walls in Malibu cannot exceed 6 feet. To fit this hotel into the site requires not only the rear 56.5-foot massive retaining wall but also high side retaining walls. The proposed hotel is embraced by retaining walls on three 257
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
3 sides to make its elevated construction possible. Consequently the hotel’s ground level in effect sits one story above the adjacent properties dominating the streetscape. This not only requires excessive excavation but also would create an uncomfortable condition on the adjacent properties. Instead of a continuous flow both visually and actively from property to property on grade, this project bumps the grade up using terracing.
It is necessary to review more carefully the Traffic numbers provided by the developer. The traffic and congestion in the Pier Area and the number of accidents and deaths increase annually. Since the Woolsey Fire and the beginning of the Covid Pandemic, there has been a change in traffic flow. There is more construction in Malibu at a time when more people have chosen to work from home. Others have more flexible working hours that has led to an increase in tourism especially to Malibu’s beaches and hiking trails. What used to be summer time weekend traffic has become year-round traffic. In pre-summer traffic it regularly takes 45 minutes on a weekend to travel from Big Rock to Trancas.
Emergency vehicles already are challenged by the weekend gridlock.
Parking is a critical challenge in the area due to the demands for employees as well as visitors. Cars waiting on the street to pull into parking lots block an entire lane on weekends reducing the traffic flow to a crawl.
It is time for the City to address the totality of the parking and circulation in this key tourist zone including the proposed Sea View Hotel and Malibu Inn Motel, the Malibu Beach Inn, Nobu, Soho House, the Malibu Pier and up to and including the Surfrider Beach Parking lot. Let’s learn from Orange County where the beachside communities are now parking lots and major highways have been constructed to circumvent them.
Now is the time for Master Planning that takes into consideration the Vision and Mission statement that respects Malibu’s rural character and natural setting, the continuous urbanization of Malibu, increased tourism traffic, parking challenges, increased pressure on groundwater, and most importantly SAFE EVACUATION.
Residents of Western Malibu can attest to the fear created by congestion as they tried to flee the Woolsey Fire. PCH was moving at a snail’s pace. Many drove through fire on both sides of PCH to reach safety.
In this time of Climate Change, it is necessary to rethink Malibu’s development goals. Recycle, Reuse, Reduce should be foremost in developing a Master Plan for Malibu.
Malibu residents come first. Let’s plan to preserve our community not make money for the developers. The money made by developers after all leaves 258
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
4 Malibu. We should encourage projects that respect Malibu and support small businesses.
Malibu is a sliver of paradise tucked in between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Let’s work together to keep it that way.
Thank you,
Charlotte M. Frieze
Founding Member
Malibu Open Space Alliance
259
From: cynthia randall
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Re: Hotel Project
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 1:27:57 PM
Mr. Hernandez:
As a Malibu resident, I oppose the new hotel proposed to be built across from the pier. During summer and weekends, that area is already way too congested with people looking for parking and making dangerous u-turns.
Instead, we desperately need a PARKING lot (preferably multi-story) there!!! Other towns make sure to have public parking.
Why doesn’t Malibu???
Thank you,
Cynthia Randall Hutchison
--
Peace and blessings,
Cynthia Randall
260
From: DL King
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 3:13:20 PM
To Whom it my concern
I object to the propose construction. I have live in Malibu since 1976. It is necessary to maintain a infrastructure to support residents and tourists. Turning one of the few available parking areas in that area into a motel is ridiculous.
That area has a major amount of congestion on it’s good days. Adding to it makes no sense with such a limited payback for the overall community.
Sincerely,
David L. King
261
From: christine kauffman
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:13:54 PM
I have lived in Malibu for over 20 years. I stopped driving 7 years ago because I found the traffic to be too unpredictable for someone in their 60s. Between weekend traffic, summer traffic, blissed out surfers, bicycles and pedestrians the confusion and aggression of other drivers this driver threw up her hands and said no more! I value life and limb of myself and others.
Putting a”motel” up is a recipe for disaster and death. These 24 miles of PCH already exceed the death rate of other roads in similar small towns. The road and residents cannot be expected to deal with an increase in traffic, parking and accidents.
Sent from my iPad
262
From: Inez McGee
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:01:36 PM
Good afternoon,
I would like to voice my opposition to a new motel at the Malibu Inn site. That is one of the most congested and dangerous sections of PCH and adding a motel would make it more so. On a weekend, or for that matter any sunny beach going day, it is like running the gauntlet thru that stretch of highway. With the pier traffic, pedestrians, Nobu and beachgoers all looking for parking and pulling out into traffic or making illegal u-turns, it is already an insane driving situation. Enough already. Please do not let this project go forward.
Thank you and be well,
Inez McGee
263
From: daniel calderon
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:42:48 PM
Hello there.
I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed new motel plans opposite Malibu Pier.....
I moved from Silverlake LA, to Malibu for a particular lifestyle, one that had less population density, less commercial real estate and more open space...... If I had wanted to live in a ‘beach city’ I would have moved to Manhattan Beach, LongBeach, or San Pedro.
I am very concerned that certain members of Malibu council and other powers-that-be seem to want to turn Malibu into a shopping-by-the-sea-hotel destination.
We already have the massive development, next to the large Wholefoods development being built.... More empty storefronts serving no-one in the community, and depriving humans and wildlife of beautiful nature.....
PCH is a nightmare drive on weekends (ask the majority of residents and you will find most do not leave their houses on these days).
Reckless drivers, including car clubs, descend in vast numbers with little police oversight (no local force of our own) and no local tow truck company!!!(because they were forced out due to commercial real estate development).
The particular stretch by the pier where the new motel wants to build is particularly problematic due to high traffic density (much of which is caused by NOBU and Soho House, that still can’t seem to abide by the rules that they agreed to abide by when planning permission was granted).
Parking is already limited at best..... (I know, the motel will have its own parking lot, but the reality will be more cars and less parking for all)!
I can’t begin to stress enough that PCH and the surrounding infrastructure cannot take this never ending commercialization.
We, the residents, the people that live here, should have our voices heard.
We don’t want another massive shopping center. We don’t want a Tesla car showroom. We don’t want a motel. If we have to have commercial development, we want businesses that serve our community ie; a local tow truck company.
Otherwise we just would rather have wild open space for all of us humans and non-humans alike to enjoy.
Thank you for your time.
Katarina Vinegrad/Calderon.
"What the caterpillar calls the end, the rest of the world calls a butterfly." Lao Tsu
"What the caterpillar calls the end, the rest of the world calls a butterfly." Lao Tsu
264
From: Patricia Salazar
To: Adrian Fernandez; Lilly Rudolph
Subject: FW: hotels on the pch
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:08:14 PM
Public comment. Please have this uploaded to onbase for each project.
From:
Date: March 9, 2021 at 12:52:11 PM PST
To: Karen Farrer <[email protected]>, Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>, Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>, Steve Uhring <[email protected]>, Kathleen Stecko <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>, Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>, Richard Mollica <[email protected]>, Fred Roberts <
Subject: hotels on the pch
Reply-To:
the number one job of the city counsel is safety
now 2 new hotels are proposed for the pch. people on sell phones not knowing malibu
looking to turn in and out on the pch. the pch in the carbon beach area has an already
high number of accidents and now you want to consider approving 2 new hotels
in case of fire. most fires come over the mountains from the valley on santa ana winds
how are you proposing to evacuate malibu residents down the pacific coast highway.
the citys failure was quite evident in the last fire on November 2018. the city has done nothing to mitigate the traffic and several new buildings have already
been approved in the civic center commercial area adding to congestion on the highway.
For the sake of safety please do not approve either of the proposed hotels
BEST REGARDS
TERRY LUCOFF
265
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New Malibu Inn Hotel Project
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2021 4:59:08 PM
I and all members of my family are very much against the new Malibu Inn Hotel project. As we all know PCH is already gridlocked most of the time. We have Norm Hainey's hotel going up very close by and of course our favorite, La Paz (don't remember the new name) in the Civic Center. Do we want complete gridlock on PCH? We definitely need a traffic study. The height of this is a blight on PCH. Why does it need to be so high. Of course Malibu will get more revenue. Seems to be the only thing our city cares about. We've forgotten about the quality of life for people that live here. Please deny this project.
Carla McCloskey
266
From: Lester Tobias
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Negative Declaration: opposition comments Date: Sunday, March 14, 2021 3:34:10 PM
I am writing in opposition to the proposed hotel on the site adjacent to the Malibu Inn.
My first point of opposition is that there is no relief in our LIP for a retaining wall that is fifty feet tall (the dimensioning of their figure 3 is incorrect), with thirteen feet exposed, and a secondary retaining wall behind it.
The spirit of our retaining wall limitations is rooted in “landform alteration” as well as visual appearance. When our code goes to great length to talk about working with existing topography, and limiting grading to a mere one thousand cubic yards, this is done to minimize the impacts of construction on the “natural" topography (or at least the topography that exists when a project is proposed).
The findings for the variance for the grading and the retaining wall simply can not be met.
My second point of opposition is that the existing JUPA and parking space analysis is significantly under counted, and since a JUPA is not a right, but a granted privilege, I think the city would be making a mistake in approving any transfer of rights or a new JUPA without significant increases to the required parking numbers.
I am a proponent of a comprehensive study and possible new zoning designation for the landward side of the Pacific Coast Highway between, say Carbon Mesa and the Civic Center to something along the lines of a “Hospitality Zone” with the types of setbacks, landform alterations, and other amenities like shuttle services and pedestrian bridges to allow for safe, reasonable commercial development of small hotels and restaurants while safely moving through-traffic along that corridor.
Until we have this new zoning, I oppose all of these slap-dash, multi-variance submittals that do nothing for Malibu, and everything for the property developer.
Thanks.
LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
267
From: Jamie Ottilie
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: malibu beach inn hearing
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:19:22 AM
I understand that the proposal for the Malibu Beach Inn is coming before the planning commission.
I have the following questions and comments:
Has a traffic study for the area been completed that takes into account all of the driveways, left turns, pedestrians jay walking to the beach, people making illegal u turns etc in the area? How can additional development be considered for this area when Nobu and Little Beach House continue to create traffic nightmares every warm weekend? There needs to be resolution.
In looking at the design – I do not understand how the property will be built without substantial variances for height – size of the retaining walls – and parking for both employees and guests. I am not in favor of malibu granting ANY variances in this area that increases development density.
What will happen to the Malibu Inn building if they lose the overflow parking lot? It appears that neither of these properties will have enough parking once complete.
Since most of our traffic comes from Santa Monica – what are the plans for people making left turns out of the hotel? Just making them illegal will not work – as we see from McDonalds, the former KFC location, V’s etc.
How will traffic enter the hotel? There is no room for a right hand turn lane without taking away public parking – is the hotel going to offer up FREE public parking to replace these spots?
I do not see how this project can be made traffic neutral nor how they will be able to pass an environmental impact study given the amount of grading required. I would urge the planning commission to view this project as skeptically as those of us who have lived in Malibu and watched our traffic and quality of life slowly get degraded. Without a longterm solution to congestion and traffic on this section of PCH – I believe that ALL development should be halted in the area until solutions can be found.
Sincerely,
Jamie Ottilie
268
From: Jamie Ottilie
To: Justine Kendall; Adrian Fernandez
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:57:01 PM
Malibu Inn Motel – 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
I would add that I am adamantly against offsite parking for the Malibu Beach Inn – this is against the building code and should not be allowed.
Jamie
From: Justine Kendall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Ottilie
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
Hi Jamie,
We are working on responses to your questions – may I confirm the project you are inquiring about? Is it the Malibu Beach Inn, an existing hotel at 22878 PCH which is proposing a new pool and offsite parking (an appeal to be discussed at the City Council meeting next Monday), or is it regarding one or both of the hotels listed here: https://www.malibucity.org/1048/Hotels.
Thank you for clarifying,
Justine
Justine Kendall | Associate Planner | City of Malibu
She/Her
NOTE: The City’s priority is protecting public health and safety. To avoid community spread of coronavirus COVID-19, City Hall is closed. However, in order to provide the public with continuity of service, staff is working remotely Monday through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM. For more information, visit //malibucity.org/coronavirus and sign up for emergency alerts at:
https://www.malibucity.org/alerts.
From: Justine Kendall
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:41 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Ottilie
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
269
Thank you!
Justine Kendall | Associate Planner | City of Malibu
She/Her
NOTE: The City’s priority is protecting public health and safety. To avoid community spread of coronavirus COVID-19, City Hall is closed. However, in order to provide the public with continuity of service, staff is working remotely Monday through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM. For more information, visit //malibucity.org/coronavirus and sign up for emergency alerts at:
https://www.malibucity.org/alerts.
From: Adrian Fernandez
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:29 AM
To: Justine Kendall <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Ottilie
Subject: FW: malibu beach inn hearing
FYR
Adrian Fernandez
Principal Planner
(424) 422-8319
From: Jamie Ottilie
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:19 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Subject: malibu beach inn hearing
I understand that the proposal for the Malibu Beach Inn is coming before the planning commission.
I have the following questions and comments:
Has a traffic study for the area been completed that takes into account all of the driveways, left turns, pedestrians jay walking to the beach, people making illegal u turns etc in the area? How can additional development be considered for this area when Nobu and Little Beach House continue to create traffic nightmares every warm weekend? There needs to be resolution.
In looking at the design – I do not understand how the property will be built without substantial variances for height – size of the retaining walls – and parking for both employees 270
and guests. I am not in favor of malibu granting ANY variances in this area that increases development density.
What will happen to the Malibu Inn building if they lose the overflow parking lot? It appears that neither of these properties will have enough parking once complete.
Since most of our traffic comes from Santa Monica – what are the plans for people making left turns out of the hotel? Just making them illegal will not work – as we see from McDonalds, the former KFC location, V’s etc.
How will traffic enter the hotel? There is no room for a right hand turn lane without taking away public parking – is the hotel going to offer up FREE public parking to replace these spots?
I do not see how this project can be made traffic neutral nor how they will be able to pass an environmental impact study given the amount of grading required. I would urge the planning commission to view this project as skeptically as those of us who have lived in Malibu and watched our traffic and quality of life slowly get degraded. Without a longterm solution to congestion and traffic on this section of PCH – I believe that ALL development should be halted in the area until solutions can be found.
Sincerely,
Jamie Ottilie
271
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:56:07 PM
Dear Planning Dept,
Please do not consider building a hotel at the most congested area of PCH in Malibu. It is unbearable trying to commute regularly in and out of Malibu and I think building this hotel right at the bottleneck will hugely exacerbate the existing problem.
Kind regards,
Lisa McKean (Owner)
272
From: Suzanne Titus
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New Plan for the Malibu Beach Inn
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06:07 PM
Hello,
I understand there is a planning meeting upcoming and I would like to submit my questions and request for a noise survey for this potential plan.
This will definitely draw a crowd and so to also see a survey for occupancy, daily attendance and parking availability provided for the property only is important and that there are reasonable rates extended, as it will impact other retailers in the area.
I will watch to see the acknowledgment and plans to provide a response.
Thank you,
Suzanne
273
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:09:57 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 8.51.20 PM.png
This is a follow up to my original email as I have read other disturbing details. How can they predict that there will only be 14/16 additional trips daily? This is absurd. Events always generate more traffic than what they are predicting. I'm also concerned when they say they will only have 3 employees--that doesn't make sense. And the noise that will be generated from a roof top event center? There are many questions that need to be answered and this report seems about as factual as the one a few years ago that said malibu traffic hadn't increased in 25 years. We need an accurate factual study that doesn't presume malibu residents aren't aware of what the actual truth is.
Thank you. Carla McCloskey
Here they claim that they anticipate large events every weekend - more in the summer and YET - predict only 14 more cars during the day and 16 at night. Large events, even medium events such as the one most likely to be held there, weddings, will bring hundreds of cars per each event.
274
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: COMMENT MND - Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:24:56 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-17 at 11.33.23 AM.png
Please add this to Malibu Inn Hotel EIR Comments.
COMMENT ON MALIBU INN HOTEL.
Unfortunately, once again, our city has been presented with a staff report dismissing and understating the impacts of new development on Malibu. This project needs an EIR to study noise, traffic, and the impact of a combination of two venues next to each other. A nightclub next to a potential new hotel.
The Malibu Inn Hotel project is proposed at one of the busiest and most dangerous sections of PCH in Malibu. Across from the heavily populated pier, filled Surfrider Beach, the only fast-food spots in Malibu, close proximity to crowded Nobu, Soho House, Malibu Beach Inn, and busy public parking lots. The staff report states that this hotel will hold large events every weekend at the new rooftop bar. These will undoubtedly include weddings, parties, conventions which will bring in hundreds of new cars and yet - staff states only 14 AM and 16 PM new additional daily car trips. This claim flies in the face of the most basic logic and accuracy.
Heavy haul trucks will need to run at least 600 - 875 loads to evacuate mounds of dirt on an already overrun PCH.
While scaled-down hotels can have advantages, this project at this intersection could not possibly be proposed at a more disruptive location. There is no possible way that this new hotel, in this area, will not greatly impact and cause more disturbance on PCH for visitors and residents. And yet this staff claims this project “would not result in any cumulative impacts”. This is a clear example of truth being understated and buried to serve developers, rather than data that protects the city and visitors on PCH.
Please unbury the truth and conduct a proper EIR. Protect this fragile city and Malibu‘s already overloaded infrastructure. Malibu must demand that a full and accurate traffic study is conducted that includes ingress and egress of all uses within a mile of this location including traffic from the pier, Nobu, Malibu Beach Inn, public parking lot, Surfrider Beach, Jack In The Box, Serra entrance, etc.
Thank you for listening, please do the job of planning correctly.
Thank you,
Jae Flora-Katz
275
From: John Stockwell
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: 22959 PCH HOTEL PROJECT
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:05:51 PM
Hi Adrian, it’s John Stockwell the owner of on the Malibu pier as well as a Pt Dume resident.
I wanted to just quickly weigh in on the potential hotel project across the street from the pier. As everyone in Malibu knows parking is already a huge issue in that area and I don’t understand how the parking for the current Aviator Nation expansion to food and entertainment will be handled if they no longer have the joint use agreement for the lot next to them.
So many of us have always felt that this location would be perfect for a well designed and well landscape parking garage to accommodate all the visitor serving parking that this area is overwhelmed with and give PCH back to the residents for their parking. The current parking lot next to aviator nation where this potential motel would go is full by 10 AM in the summer with people paying $45 a car so where will all those people go if there is no parking option there anymore?
There are obviously a host of additional issues such as the amount of excavation and retaining walls necessary as well as the impact of the construction on PCH but my bigger issue is this is an incredible opportunity to create parking in the center of the commercial district of Malibu. 276
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel - An Ambitious Proposal
From: Karen Farrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:24 AM
To: Heather Glaser <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Malibu Inn Motel ‐ An Ambitious Proposal
Begin forwarded message:
From: LSGLA
Date: March 17, 2021 at 3:59:21 AM PDT
To: Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>, Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>, Karen Farrer <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel ‐ An Ambitious Proposal
Dear Malibu City Council:
It is inadvisable for the City of Malibu to approve the project known as the ‘Malibu Inn Motel’ as proposed by Burdge & Associates Architects and Surfrider Plaza LLC.
Furthermore, the excavation and removal of 12,255 cubic yards of soil, the sinking of caissons, the ‘carving out’ of a substantial portion of the hillside necessitating the construction of a massive retaining wall, needs extensive due diligence for the feasibility and safety of family homes located above said excavation and build‐out.
This project should be evaluated by legal counsel for extensive liability issues; reference the building of a mega mansion
in Beverly Hills on a hillside and the potential jeopardy to surrounding residences.
Additionally, just think ‐ an estimated 600
to 875 heavy haul truck trips to remove approximately 12,225 cubic yards of soil. This vehicle count does not include regular construction ‐ just the excavation... “Hot time in the summertime” seriously? “Minimally affect roadways” ‐ please who drew this conclusion? This project is located in the most heavily congested stretch of Pacific Coast Highway. It is already populated with hospitality service businesses with totally inadequate parking. The City of Malibu has approved these projects, knowing full‐well they were not in compliance. The end result ‐ pandemonium; no parking, traffic accidents, congestion lasting hours and residents being trapped at home.
The residents of Malibu suffered the unimaginable trauma of the Woolsey fires.
Many still harbor resentment about the perceived failures of our city government. Many know precisely the roar of heavy haul trucks removing debris from burned‐out family homes. Now imagine 600 to 875 heavy haul trucks, filled with dirt and debris, 6 days a week, on the main thoroughfare, in and out of Malibu...to excavate for the Malibu Inn Motel.
277
2 A year of isolation, the result of a global pandemic and ‘you all’ decided to give final approval and allow construction to begin on a mega project known as Cross Creek Ranch. Smart developer, with impeccable timing, to push this 2008 project through in January 2021 when Malibuites were quarantined.
Please consider the following notations when considering the Malibu Inn Motel:
ݢݡݠݟ1 cubic yard of topsoil weighs 2,200lbs.
ݢݡݠݟ1 cubic yard of loose dirt weighs 2,800lbs.
ݢݡݠݟMinimally affect roadways ‐ nonsense.
ݢݡݠݟ12,225 cubic yards of excavated soil.
ݢݡݠݟ600 to 875 HEAVY HAUL TRUCK TRIPS.
ݢݡݠݟConstruction to begin SUMMER 2021
A number of us have been friends for years. We’ve raised our children together and we love our little town. Let’s remember; we all want what’s best and most of us have very good intentions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. And most importantly, thank you for your service and dedication to our community.
Be kind whenever possible. It’s always possible. ~ Dalai Lama Best regards,
Lynn Saunders Guilburt
278
3 The contents of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this message, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
279
From: Matt Goodwin
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: 22959 Pacific Coast Public Comment
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:33:41 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 11.26.39 AM.png
Hello Adrian,
I'm writing in regards to the Staff Report and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for 22959 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA.
Below is an outline of key items I would like to flag. This project will require significant disruption to the existing mountainside, thereby creating earth movement in an earthquake zone, significant construction noise, major PCH shutdowns and traffic throughout construction for utilities and will set precedents that Malibu hasn't seen before like 55ft retaining walls and subterranean parking in beachfront environments.
In addition, the City has indicated in this report that the project does not propose an Environmental Issue, and is suggesting a Negative Mitigated Declaration, as opposed to requiring a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I think there are plenty of environmental issues/risks that\ would trigger an EIR.
Issues
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report and Proposed Adoption that the project satisfies a Negative Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as opposed to requiring a full Environmental Investigation Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale of this project, request for numerous variances and obvious disruption to natural environment disruption and risks and construction hurdles, this should obviously be an EIR requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 you only list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk. However they should also be checking Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape, Air Quality through Construction with that much earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to Subterranean Parking.
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall retaining wall should create a massive amount of heavy duty construction through the use of foundation piles that will create major earth vibration and sound during the course of construction. Approving an enormously large wall and subterranean parking would create a significant impact to the existing landscape and residential well being and create a new precedent for Malibu. I am also concerned for the stability of his hillside as it also relates to our property just two lots to the west. I can imagine during construction that significant vibration from pile driving and foundation / shoring work will create similar vibrations further west and put our hillside at risk. Have they considered vibration monitors so they do not affect the neighbors properties and cause landslides? Additionally, subterranean parking seems like a stretch for such a close proximity to the beachfront.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to the graphic below, you will see how much land is being proposed to be removed from the mountain which is quite enormous and will trigger environmental and stability issues.This project is requesting major variances and should be considered within the more suitable flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a maximum building height can be 24' or 28' 280
with a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is 44'-1" which is significantly taller than the allotted requirement. As a note, we were building a similar elevator to take guests to our roof deck and we would've been at 28'-6" due to the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower than our existing roof line. We were denied and ended up having to build one elevator that goes from the ground to second floor and another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof deck.
Thereby this is another "variance / ask" that seems to be out of place and should be reviewed in equal detail.
It seems also the loss of public parking will only create further parking issues for the Malibu Pier / Surfrider Beach area. Perhaps it could be a nice parking structure? Thank you,
Matthew Goodwin
Malibu, CA 90265
281
To : Adrian Fernandez
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Re: Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
Date: 3‐17‐21
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project Description
The Malibu Inn Motel, proposed to be located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, is for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, grading, retaining walls, landscaping and a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including variances for non‐exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards per acre of commercial development, construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, surface parking within the required front yard setback, and retaining walls in excess of six feet in height, a site plan review for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 28 feet for a pitched roof, a conditional use permit for a new commercial development over 500 square feet and a motel in the CV‐1 zoning district, and for a Joint Use Parking Agreement to share parking spaces with the adjacent lot.
Benefit to Residents
How does this project benefit the residents of Malibu?
How does this project enhance residents quality of life ? Why were residents not notified and allowed input prior to the preparation of the this Negative Declaration (“ND”)?
Development Criteria Ignored
With so many major variances required, how did this project get to the point of the city proposing a mitigated negative declaration?
Why didn’t the city ask the owner to develop within the code, instead of allowing the developer to ignore the development standards put in place to protect the small town rural feeling of Malibu?
The General Plan states that Commercial Development has to be residential in size. Why was this ignored?
282
Why isn’t the city insisting its development criteria be met to protect Malibu from urbanization?
Why is city staff justifying this project by stating it is the same height as the oversized county approved clock building when the Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the continuation of this county allowed type of construction ?
FAR
The code allows for commercial development at a maximum FAR of .15.
According to Slow Growth’s calculations the actual FAR is .15.37 If we are correct this exceeds the allowable FAR.
What is the actual FAR of this project? The ND states the slope is greater than 2 ½ to1. What percentage of the slope is 1:1 or steeper? Has the portion of the slope which is 1:1 or greater been deducted when calculating the properties square footage ? If not, how much has to be deducted? And how much smaller does the project have to be to meet the required .15 FAR after the deduction of the 1:1 or great slopes ? Height
The ND states the structure is 28 ft in height. Height is measured from grade and this structure is 46 ft.in height from finished grade to the top of the roof’s elevator shaft. Elevator’s are not excluded when calculating height.
This is in reality a 3 or 4 story structure. There is the 2 story motel and the third story is the actual above ground parking under the motel. The 4th story is the rooftop space containing the pool and the produding 10ft high elevator and a 3 ft. high guard rail .
Although described as subterranean parking, to say the parking structure is subterranean is misleading since only about 4 ft is actually underground. This parking structure is not subterranean since the majority of the parking is above ground level. (See figure 3 ND.)
Was the above ground portion of the parking structure counted in calculating the FAR ?
283
The NG states: ‘’The proposed new motel would be similar in size, bulk and scale to existing structures to the east and west ...‘’ This is an inaccurate statement This building is massive in relation to the Malibu Inn which is directly to the west and the Chabad building directly to the east which are both one story and under 18 ft. in height (see rendering )
https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/27710/Malibu‐Inn‐ Motel_Renderings
Why is city staff justifying this project by stating it is the same height bulk and scale as a oversized county approved clock building when the Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the continuation of this non‐ human scale type of urban construction?
Geology
Why wasn’t the fact that the project is in a tsunami zone analyzed ? The ND states: “As the project site is located within the seismically active Southern California region, there is the potential for regional seismic events to cause strong ground shaking at the project site. There is also a possibility that there could be trace of previously unidentified faults somewhere onsite. The residential structure located north of and above the slopes on and adjacent to the project site has been identified on top of a potentially unstable slope, and excavation of the toe to this slope for the new hotel, subterranean parking and retaining wall have the potential to cause slope failure if exacerbated by rainfall”.
The Geology study confirms this is an unstable bluff. What is to prevent the portion of the bluff above the retaining wall from sliding in a heavy rain or a major earthquake?
Did the owner do anything to determine that there were no faults running through the property ? Is so, what kind of investigation did they do and what did they find ?
The ND states that even following the codes loss of life could occur, and the loss of life and property would have a less than a significant impact. Please explain how can loss of life ever be considered a less than a significant impact 284
Coastal Bluff/Grading
The ND states: ‘’The Project is proposed on a site that was likely on or immediately adjacent to a beach prior to development and was subject to coastal processes (e.g., wave action, beach scour), and has experienced substantial erosion from the northern bluff into the project site (Appendix B).’’This description meets the definition of a Coastal Bluff‘’ Elsewhere in the ND it states ‘’the Project would only alter the lower approximately 50 feet of the slope, while the upper 130 feet remain unaltered.’’ This would be accomplished by cutting into/ excavating a massive amount of the coastal bluff. This excavated soil will have to be exported off site. ’Where does the code allow cutting into a coastal bluff ? If the city denies it is a coastal bluff, where in the code does it allow cutting into a bluff face allowable? What is the length and depth of the cuts into bluff ?
The code allows for 1000 cu yds of grading and the cut and fill should be balanced remain on site and not be exported.
Grading Into the slope is not exempt. The only exempt grading is the approximately 4ft. underground portion of the parking structure. 12,649 cu yds of cut into this bluff is an enormous amount of grading into an admittedly unstable hillside. What is to prevent the hillside from sliding during the grading 50 ft high into slope ?
Is the 11,693 understory grading for the approximately 4 ft of the subterrain parking Lot?
Why was the removal al of the cut dirt off site estimated to be only 600‐800 cu. yds when a normal dump truck carries 10 cu.yds. of dirt ? A more realistic calculation is 1,269 truck loads have to hauled off site.
Over how may days will PCH traffic be disrupted as the dirt is being hauled off site?
Why isn’t a traffic management plan required now so the impact of this project is known to the decision makers and the public ?
285
Retaining Wall
Under the code retaining walls are to be no higher than 6 feet in height. The proposed retaining wall height is 46 ft above finished grade but in reality is 56.5 ft high measured in its entirety.
What is the length of the retaining wall?
Just because the retaining wall will be camouflaged and hence supposedly looks ok from PCH doesn’t mean such a high deviation of what is allowed under the code should be granted.
What is the visual impact of this retaining wall from the end and middle of the Malibu Pier?
How far will west bound traffic be backed up because of the construction of this project during Saturdays and in the summer?
Cultural Resources
Where did the preparer of the ND get information regarding the lack of the possibility of cultural resources on site dismissing the potential for their existence due to possible past wave action? Recent 20th century evidence proves otherwise.
According to a supporter of Slow Growth when the clock tower building 2 properties to the east was under construction a Chumash burial site was found and excavated. All along this area east of the Malibu Creek at various times Chumash artifacts and burials have been found. It is therefore likely that this site could harbor a Chumash burial ground or in the very least Chumash artifacts.
It appears that this section of the ND was written based on supposition rather than researching the actual situation. We suspect if the research was done there are probably several recorded Chumash sites in the vicinity .
The MLCP gives instruction as to how to the city is to deal with potential Chumash sites both pre construction site and during construction Why isn’t the LUP being ignored instead of being followed ?
Wastewater
286
It appears that the OWTS is being allowed only because there is an expectation that this part of town will be required to hookup to the Civic Center Treatment in phase 3 which is expected to occur in 2028.
Is Phase 3 guaranteed? Can this OWTS perform for the life of the project if phase 3 doesn’t happen? What is the expected life of this system ? How far above the groundwater table is the OWTS ? Is there a chance that groundwater brackish or fresh can enter the system ?
What kind of problems can be caused because the leach field is not large enough to hold the effluent from this project and the Malibu Inn? The ND states:’’The fact the property owner has to record a covenant notifying new owners of the following: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non‐habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair’’.
The uncertainties of the workability of the OWTS and its leach fields should result in project denial or in the very least require an EIR since the possibility of it not working is significant.
Public Access
The denial/loss of public parking for visitors to the Malibu Pier will be significant and is not mitigable. Why isn’t this loss of parking acknowledged in the ND? What percentage of the motel rooms will be low income accommodations? Parking
287
The joint use parking agreement with the Malibu Inn is not sufficient when the restaurant dining area is full, the outdoor tent is in use and/or they have bands and other entertainment on site. Since this is the case why isn’t the actual required parking being increased ?
What motel personnel will occupy the 3 employee parking spaces? How many employees will be employed by the Malibu Inn and The Aviation Nation shop when the Malibu Inn is at full capacity ? Where will these employees park?
Will the motel and Inn parking be valet parking or self serve? Why isn’t stacked parking being required now as a part of the project? Stacked parking will have to be installed now or installed later since the Malibu Inn is under parked for the amount of cars that will using the site? How will the after the fact installation of stacked disrupt needed project parking and for how long?
In an emergency, stacked parking is not a good idea because of the time needed to get cars out of the lot and on to the driveway how long a delay will there be if the stacked cars and their drivers have to be evacuated? Even if there is no stacked parking in an evacuation situation it will take an enormous amount of time to get all the cars and their occupants off site. A EIR needs to analyze this situation because in an emergency a very dangerous situation is being created.
If there is valet parking and /or stacked parking have these employees been counted in the 3 employee parking space allotment? If not, how many more parking spaces will be needed for these employees?
Will the handicap parking stalls reduce the needed/required parking if they are not being used ?
At one point the ND says only 3 additional parking spaces are needed for employees. Later on it says there will be 20 employees onsite at peak times. If this is the case why aren’t more spaces being provided? 288
Why does the ND not analyze the impact of loss of needed Malibu Pier parking which is needed on weekends and summer days . This needs to be analyzed in an EIR.
Since it is rare, if not impossible, to find parking along PCH and the pier parking lot is full in the summer and often in winter weekends there certainly will a loss of needed pier/ beach parking. How is the current property’s parking spaces used by residents and visitors alike being replaced?
Traffic
The traffic study doesn’t reflect the reality of the traffic backup and gridlock on this strip of PCH. It talks around it. In actuality, there is a traffic movement problem on a regular basis during rush hour and in the summer and it is significant and not mitigable.
Why are we allowing a minimum 20 more visitor cars going in and out of the motel more than once a day add to the already unmitigable traffic problems? Emergency
PCH is a major evacuation route and the ND states the incremental increase in traffic is not an evacuation problem and the impact is not significant. Obviously, the preparer of the emergency impacts has never been on PCH in an emergency situation or when an ambulance is trying to get to Santa Monica on a summer day when traffic is gridlocked. Even an incremental increase if traffic can be and is significant.
These so called incremental impacts have to be studied along with the incremental impacts of all of the earlier projects mentioned below in the cumulative an EIR.
There is no real analysis in the ND. Statement are simplistically made and expected to be accepted as true. The expectation in the ND is the evacuation will go perfectly without real consideration of an overcrowded after dark smoke filled gridlocked highway, with non functioning traffic lights ,and unpredictable human behavior to name just a few of the many safe evacuation impediments. The worst case situation has to beanalyzed in an EIR. 289
The ND naively states that with implementation of the required fuel modification plan on the project site, wind driven wildfire impacts would be less than significant. This statement doesn’t take into account that wildfire embers travel for miles.
Cumulative Impacts
As required by CEQA why doesn’t this ND take into account the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct?
Why aren’t the cumulative impacts of this project being studied in light of all the created traffic congestion and parking impacts from recently approved development which residents are constantly upset about.
The project needs be studied in conjunction with the traffic circulation and off site parking impacts created by the Sea View Hotel , the Malibu Beach Inn, Avis lot parking , Nobu , Soho House , Malibu Pier and Malibu Inn as well as Surfrider beach parking east of the Adamson house and west of the Malibu.
Pier. The traffic and the PCH parking impacts of all of these projects should be factored in when considering the impact of this project. This is a major reason why an EIR is needed.
It is well known to residents that there is not enough parking in the vicinity for the users of these facilities and their employees.
And despite what individual traffic studies state, this area of PCH is highly congested. During rush hour westbound traffic often backed up all the way to Carbon Canyon. On a good day traffic is backed up during rush hour from the Malibu Beach Inn to Cross Creek Rd.
On summer weekends and even during summer weekdays traffic doesn’t move in this area. It is gridlocked. The city’s traffic studies do not reflect reality.
This project as well as the many others in this vicinity have/are being piecemealed through with no thought given to the cumulative traffic , parking and other environmental impacts such as aesthetics , increased groundwater, urbanization of Malibu , safe evacuation and the failure to construct projects 290
that meet the development criteria/standards set forth in the Municipal Code and MLCP.
Since the cumulative impacts are not being studied in relation to recently past piecemealed projects and potential future projects, this ND is fatally flawed.
EIR Required
Under CEQA, If there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
The ND failed to indicate any potentially significant impacts but there are some that are significant not mitigable such as traffic. An EIR needs to be done and if the city council desires this project, it would have to make a finding of overriding consideration.
The very fact that this project is a significant departure from the code requirements makes an EIR necessary. In the EIR more environmentally protective alternatives have to be analyzed such as “no project “and a smaller one story commercial project which is residential in scale that doesn’t need all these monumental variances have to be analyzed.
In this instance the parking impacts are significant and they are glossed over in the ND. The current site during the day provided parking for visitors to the pier and the Farm restaurants on the pier. This needed parking is being lost.
Cuts and excavation into the toe and then excessive excavation of the slope 50 foot high to a unknown depth is destabilizing the slope without an enormous
56.6 ft retaining wall.
Furthermore it is questionable if these cuts are allowable since it is cutting into a bluff face and the cuts and retaining wall are of a magnitude that is unimaginable in Malibu.
291
From: Suzannah Owens
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Project Comment
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:52:19 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am emailing regarding the current Malibu Inn project. The city is in dire need of more hotel rooms and I believe this will be a great improvement to the empty parking lot that is currently there.
I think this project will be a great asset to the city and I look forward to referring family members from out of town.
Best,
Suzannah
292
From: Judy Ettinger
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel, 22959 PCH., Malibu
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:22:35 PM
Dear Adrian:
After reading about the new proposed hotel for Malibu, called The Malibu Inn Motel, I would like to bring up the point that a 20 room motel would be a great fit for Malibu, since it would be considered more of a boutique hotel. I really liked the design, with the use of the exterior wood, it looks like it would blend nicely into the current landscaping.
I do agree that we need a new hotel and new growth in Malibu, it has been long over due. I have a lot of relatives that come from out of town that would really enjoy a pool with a restaurant, especially in that location with the view of Malibu and the Ocean. I look forward to having a new hotel for my friends and family to come visit Southern California.
293
From: Mark Dempster
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Kim Dempster
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:07:58 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 11.26.39 AM.png
MalibuInnMotel_PublicDraft_202102171547271450.pdf
Hello Ms. Fernandez,
We are residential owners at
(across the street, approximately in between
Jack-in-the-Box and Aviator Nation and directly next
door to the Malibu Pier).
Let me start by saying that a new hotel would be a net
positive to Malibu generally and this neighborhood
specifically. However, as proposed, we are
diametrically opposed to any aspect of this project. In fact, we oppose a project that's even half this scale
and impact. What we do support is a project that is not a square inch larger than the Surfrider Hotel and one
that follows every single letter of the code without a
single variance, just as the Surfrider abided by with
their renovation.
Our view is that the owner and the architect of 22959
PCH actually don't want this project, as proposed. We
believe they are doing nothing more than playing a
game with the City of Malibu. That game is to submit a
set of basic drawings that reflects a maximum
footprint, per the square footage of the lot, and ask for every variance under the sun to make that proposal
achievable from an engineering and construction
standpoint. But, our suspicion is that the owner and
the architect know full well that there's zero chance of approval of this proposal, are expecting to get pushed
back to a more achievable and desirable project, but
one that still got a number of variances granted by the city.
The owner and architect could have followed a more
neighborly and measured process in drafting their first proposal. But, for their conscious game playing, we ask that the city put this project through the gauntlet of
following proper protocol.
Specifically, we ask that the city not grant this project 294
the requested variances:
1. Non-Exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards per acre of commercial
development (asking to export 12,255 cubic
yards as reference)
2. Construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1
3. Surface parking beyond the required front yard
setback
4. Retaining walls in excess of six feet in height
(asking for a 52.5ft all wall above the
subterranean parking garage as reference)
Furthermore, we ask the city insist that this project not deviate from the following:
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report
and Proposed Adoption that the project
satisfies a Negative
Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as opposed to
requiring a full Environmental Investigation
Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale of this
project, request for numerous variances and
obvious disruption to natural environment
disruption and risks and construction hurdles,
this should obviously. Refer to Pg3 to get an
understanding on the EIR requirement vs NMD
requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 they only
list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk.
However they should also be checking
Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape,
Air Quality through Construction with that much
earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use
Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to
Subterranean Parking
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The
creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall
retaining wall should create a massive amount
of heavy duty construction through the use of
foundation piles that will create major earth
vibration and sound during the course of
construction. Approving an enormously large
wall and subterranean parking would create a
significant impact to the existing landscape and
residential well being and creating a new
precedent for Malibu.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non
295
Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to
the graphic below, you will see how much land
is being proposed to be removed from the
mountain which is quite enormous and will
trigger environmental and stability issues.This
project is requesting major variances and
should be considered within the more suitable
flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a
maximum building height can be 24' or 28' with
a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the
height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is
44'-1" which is significantly taller than the
allotted requirement. As a note, we were
building a similar elevator to take guests to our
roof deck and wee would've been at 29' due to
the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower
than our existing roof line. Wee were denied
and ended up having to build one elevator that
goes from the ground to second floor and
another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof
deck. Thereby this is another "variance / ask"
that seems to be out of place and should be
scrutinized.
My contact information is below should you have the
need for any follow-up.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark & Kim Dempster
Mark Dempster
296
297
From: nicholas eliopoulos
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: proposed motel for 22959 PCH
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44:59 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I would like to express my support for the proposed motel across form the Malibu pier at 22959 PCH.
The motel would be a welcome addition to Malibu. I am a native Angeleno and have lived in Malibu.
When friends and family visit they always comment on the lack of nice lodging in Malibu.
It is such a beautiful place and Malibu very much needs more quality lodging.
The rendering shows a design that is beautiful and fits in so nicely with Malibu.
The motel is perfectly located across from the pier and beach.
There is a traffic light across from the motel which makes crossing to the pier and beach easily accessible.
The project seems to be extremely well planned and includes subterranean and grade level parking.
Having more lodging in Malibu will help alleviate the often-unwelcomed airbnb use.
I would enjoy patronizing a motel like this for myself and my visiting friends and family and to enjoy another dining
choice in Malibu. I was very excited to see this proposed motel and very much support the project.
Sincerely,
Nick Eliopoulos
298
From: Paul Astin
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Mark Dempster; Alexander Astin;
Subject: Initial Study No. 20-003, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003, Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030 and 18-031, Site Plan Review No. 18-025, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 18-001
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:53:54 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I, Paul Astin, Trustee of the Astin Family Trust, the owner of hereby join in and adopt in full the objections made by Mark Dempster at regarding the proposed developments across the street from our home.
We are extremely concerned on the impact this development as proposed will have on our home and community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Please also confirm you have received my email at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Paul Astin
299
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Mark Dempster; Kim Dempster ICE
Subject: Initial Study No. 20-003, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003, Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030 and 18-031, Site Plan Review No. 18-025, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 18...
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:21:00 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I Robert J. Allan, Trustee of the Malibu Property Trust U/D/T 12/14/00, the owner of 23018 PCH hereby hereby join in and adopt in full the objections made by Mark Dempster at 23006 PCH, Malibu, CA.
We are extremely concerned on the impact this development as proposed will have on our home and community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Please also confirm you have received my email at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Robert J. Allan
300
From: Roni Serrato
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 5:05:29 PM
Hello Ms. Fernandez,
I am the residential owner at
(across the street and one of the six houses
next door to the Malibu Pier).
I am opposed to any aspect of this project. In fact, I
oppose a project that's even half this scale and impact.
What I do support is a project that is not a square inch larger than the Surfrider Hotel and one that follows
every single letter of the code without a single
variance, just as the Surfrider abided by with their
renovation.
MY view is that the owner and the architect of 22959
PCH actually don't want this project, as proposed. We
believe they are doing nothing more than playing a
game with the City of Malibu. That game is to submit a
set of basic drawings that reflects a maximum
footprint, per the square footage of the lot, and ask for every variance under the sun to make that proposal
achievable from an engineering and construction
standpoint. But, our suspicion is that the owner and
the architect know full well that there's zero chance of approval of this proposal, are expecting to get pushed
back to a more achievable and desirable project, but
one that still got a number of variances granted by the city.
The owner and architect could have followed a more
neighborly and measured process in drafting their first proposal. But, for their conscious game playing, we ask that the city put this project through the gauntlet of
following proper protocol.
Specifically, we ask that the city not grant this project the requested variances:
1. Non-Exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards per acre of commercial
development (asking to export 12,255 cubic
yards as reference)
301
2. Construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1
3. Surface parking beyond the required front yard
setback
4. Retaining walls in excess of six feet in height
(asking for a 52.5ft all wall above the
subterranean parking garage as reference)
Furthermore, we ask the city insist that this project not deviate from the following:
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report
and Proposed Adoption that the project satisfies
a Negative Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as
opposed to requiring a full Environmental
Investigation Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale
of this project, request for numerous variances
and obvious disruption to natural environment
disruption and risks and construction hurdles,
this should obviously. Refer to Pg3 to get an
understanding on the EIR requirement vs NMD
requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 they only
list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk.
However they should also be checking
Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape,
Air Quality through Construction with that much
earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use
Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to
Subterranean Parking
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The
creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall
retaining wall should create a massive amount
of heavy duty construction through the use of
foundation piles that will create major earth
vibration and sound during the course of
construction. Approving an enormously large
wall and subterranean parking would create a
significant impact to the existing landscape and
residential well being and creating a new
precedent for Malibu.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non
Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to
the graphic below, you will see how much land
is being proposed to be removed from the
mountain which is quite enormous and will
trigger environmental and stability issues.This
project is requesting major variances and
should be considered within the more suitable
302
flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a
maximum building height can be 24' or 28' with
a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the
height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is
44'-1" which is significantly taller than the
allotted requirement. As a note, we were
building a similar elevator to take guests to our
roof deck and wee would've been at 29' due to
the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower
than our existing roof line. Wee were denied
and ended up having to build one elevator that
goes from the ground to second floor and
another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof
deck. Thereby this is another "variance / ask"
that seems to be out of place and should be
scrutinized.
If you need to contact me
Sincerely,
Roni Serrato
303
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn and Seaview Hotel on PCH
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:08 AM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu Inn and Seaview Hotel on PCH
Good morning,
I think this is a horrible mistake on the City's part to allow these hotels. This part of PCH is already horribly impacted by traffic. At times, it is a 2 hour wait to drive from Sunset to Kanan. I grew up in the area, and we have recently purchased a home on Cavalleri. And in all the years of living in the area, traffic has just gets worse and worse and worse!! If you choose to move forward with these plans, HOW ARE YOU DEALING WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC? How does someone exit the hotel and not get hit!? Until you can control the number of vehicles in this area, the noise and car pollution it creates, the road rage, and multiple accidents, this area SHOULD NOT be developed any further. If you want more hotels, then they should be near an egress point off of PCH - at Topanga Cyn Blvd, or Malibu Canyon or Kanan. Putting more and more in the Carbon Beach area is a nightmare! Let alone the further impact of to the existing soils for septic systems!
I am saddened that the City is looking to just generate revenue off of bed-tax, and are not looking to protect the City's residents. Instead of a hotel, put in a multi-story parking lot where the city could generate much needed parking revenue, or add metered parking on PCH, or limit the number of vehicles allowed in the area at any one time, or ask all the shopping centers to add metered parking!
As it sits now, the City is strangling the inhabitants with more and more unwanted hotels and "shopping" centers, creating more traffic and pollution, and doing NOTHING to mitigate the danger. Add more police, add traffic cameras for speeding, add a stop light at Puerco canyon so ANOTHER PERSON DOESN'T DIE...for Goodness sakes, the City is responsible to the residents, first and foremost, not the developers.
Regards,
Ninon Tantet
The Bill and Marian Cook Foundation &
Arizona Asset Management, Inc.
304
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration
This section includes comments received during circulation of the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) prepared for the Malibu Inn Motel Project (Project).
The Draft IS-MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on February 19, 2021, 2021 and ended on March 22, 2021, 2021. The Draft IS-MND was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, that began on March 29, 2021 and ended on April 28, 2021. The City of Malibu (City) received 27 comment letters on the Draft IS-MND.
The commenters and each commenter’s identifying letter or number are listed below.
Letter No. and Commenter
Comment Set/
Number of Comments Name of Commenter Date Received
Agency Letters
A A.1 – A.2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) April 14, 2021 B B.1 – B.16 Malibu Open Space Alliance April 27, 2021
Individual Letters
1 1.1 – 1.2 Cynthia Randall March 7, 2021
2 2.1 – 2.2 David King March 7, 2021
3 3.1 Christine Kauffman March 8, 2021
4 4.1 Inez McGee March 8, 2021
5 5.1 Katarina Vinegrad Calderon March 8, 2021
6 6.1 Terry Lucoff March 9, 2021
7 7.1 – 7.3 Carla McCloskey (1) March 14, 2021
8 8.1 – 8.3 Lester Tobias March 14, 2021
9 9.1 – 9.7 Jamie Ottilie (1) March 15, 2021
10 10.1 Jamie Ottilie (2) March 15, 2021
11 11.1 Lisa McKean March 15, 2021
12 12.1 – 12.2 Susanne Titus March 15, 2021
13 13.1 – 13.4 Carla McCloskey (2) March 17, 2021
14 14.1 – 1 4.3 Jae FloraKatz March 17,2021
15 15.1 – 15.3 John Stockwell March 17, 2021
16 16.1 – 16.3 Lynn Saunders Guilburt March 17, 2021
17 17.1 – 17.7 Matt Goodwin March 17, 2021
305
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Comment Set/
Number of Comments Name of Commenter Date Received
18 18.1 – 18.57 Patt Healy March 17, 2021
19 19.1 Suzannah Owens March 17, 2021
20 20.1 Judy Ettinger March 18, 2021
21 21.1 – 21.7 Mark and Kim Dempster March 18, 2021
22 22.1 Nick Eliopoulos March 18, 2021
23 23.1 Paul Astin March 18, 2021
24 24.1 Robert Allan March 18, 2021
25 25.1 – 25.6 Roni Serrato March 18, 2021
The comment letters and responses are organized as follows. The comment letters have been lettered first by agency, and then individuals’ letters numbered by date received and then by first name, alphabetically. Each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the letter or number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter A, and Response 1.1 indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1). Edits made to the IS-MND between the Draft and Final Draft manifest in a strikeout and underline format to identify removed and added text, respectively. 306
307
308
309
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter A
Commenter: Miya Edmonson, IGR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Date: April 14, 2021
Response A.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The comment states this letter supersedes the letter dated March 17,2021 as the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provided incorrect project documentation. The commenter correctly identifies the proposed Project’s general specifications and acknowledges vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the standard transportation analysis for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as of July 1, 2020.
Comments regarding feedback of the IS-MND and associated Traffic Study will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. Detailed responses to the discrete comments made by Caltrans regarding the Project are provided below.
Response A.2
The comment states the Project should incorporate multi-modal and complete streets transportation elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. The commenter states the Project should prioritize and allocate space for efficient modes of travel, which would allow streets to transport more people in a designated right-of-way.
However, the Project is located along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) which serves heavy through commuter and tourist traffic in a low density semi-rural area with minimal transit service, and is therefore not amendable to urban area alternative transportation solutions. In addition, PCH lies under the control of Caltrans, which has sole authority to implement changes to PCH. In the project vicinity, PCH provides limited pedestrian accommodation and no bicycle lanes. However, the project site would have pedestrian access provided via the sidewalk along PCH adjacent to the site where Malibu Pier connects to PCH as well as associated walkways entering the site. Landscaped planter strips would be installed along the pedestrian walkways and roadways throughout the project site. The project site would be a pedestrianoriented landscape frontage. As described in Section 4.17.2, Transportation-Impact Discussion, under Impact A, “development of the Project would not interfere with public transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities, and would facilitate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) site access.” Therefore, the Project is consistent with Caltrans’s prioritization of multi-modal transportation along right-of-ways to the extent feasible from the roadway design of PCH in the City.
Response A.3
The comment states Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets (a reduction of lanes that a pedestrian needs to cross, thus reducing their exposure to traffic) and other traffic calming measures. 310
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The Project and IS-MND do not include a road diet or traffic calming features, as PCH is under the authority of Caltrans which has the sole authority to implement such measures. Further, PCH serves heavy through commuter and tourist traffic in a low density semi-rural area with minimal transit service, and is therefore not amendable to urban area alternative transportation solutions such as road diets or traffic calming.
However, the City would consider supporting any such changes implemented by Caltrans. Further, as stated in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, “per the OPR December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact. Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition trip generation rates, the total daily Project trips are estimated as 68. As such, impacts to transportation would be less than significant.” Therefore, no road diet or other traffic calming measures are required for the Project due to its less than significant traffic impact. Nevertheless, the comment will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response A.4
The comment states Caltrans has published VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated December 18, 2020.
The IS-MND provides analysis consistent with Caltrans adopted standards, including both VMT analysis as well as documented safety issues along PCH. The IS-MND relies on VMT-based analysis for roadway capacity assessment pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743 as the CEQA metric for impact analysis. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, the City is in the process of creating local transportation assessment guidelines consistent with SB 743 and OPR’s guidance, but these guidelines are not yet available and trip length estimates for hotel/motel uses in the City have not been established. However, Caltrans has chosen to use VMT as the CEQA transportation metric for projects on the State Highway System. As the Project is located on the State Highway System, VMT was used for impact analysis purposes and is consistent with Caltrans comment.
Response A.5
The comment asserts that Alternative 3 is recommended by Caltrans since it will always maintain the internal access with no access restriction between two adjacent areas. The comment also notes that any work performed within the State right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit including a construction management plan from Caltrans when the driveway construction is in the State right-of-way.
Appendix C, Transportation Studies, of the IS-MND provides a detailed description of Alternative 3, and ultimately recommends this as the preferred alternative as the pros outweigh the cons in roadway access and circulation. Additionally, the IS-MND in Section 4.15, Public Services, states the “modified driveways would require review and approval of an Encroachment Permit by Caltrans.” If approved, the Project and Applicant would coordinate with Caltrans further for all necessary permitting. Therefore, the comment directly aligns with the IS-MND and associated Appendix C. 311
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response A.6
The comment states the Project should be designed to discharge clean water, and that discharge of stormwater runoff is not permitted onto State Highway facilities without a stormwater management plan.
As described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS-MND, the Project would comply with State requirements for stormwater discharge. The Project would not have the potential to exceed drainage flows during design year storms, which has the potential to continue to outlet to PCH and may contain contaminants associated with urban areas (e.g., oil and grease). To minimize and avoid contamination runoff onto PCH and ultimately the Pacific Ocean, the Project would implement specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to retain and treat stormwater on-site. BMPs include catch basins at varying levels of the proposed structure leading up to the retaining wall in addition to locations in the surface parking areas. The Applicant would be responsible for routine maintenance of the catch basins, filter inserts, and water store tank. Additionally, implementation of the approved water quality plans for the Project would ensure pollutants do not runoff and enter PCH and the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Caltrans comment.
Response A.7
The comment states the Project is required to have a transportation permit from Caltrans for transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways. Caltrans recommends large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods and idle times to not exceed 10 minutes.
As described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project is required to obtain permit approval for hauling on Caltrans right-of-way, such as along PCH, which may include additional construction-related requirements to obtain approval as mentioned above. Further, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the City applies Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to all applicable projects to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic including but not limited to: “for the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversizedtransport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from Caltrans.” Comments regarding recommendations for the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and will be available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 312
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
1 MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE
TO: Adrian Hernandez, Principal Planner
FROM: Malibu Open Space Alliance by Charlotte Frieze
RE: Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
DATE: April 22, 2021
“The CV-1 District is intended to provide for visitor serving uses, including motels and bed and breakfast inns, which serve visitors and residents that are designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.”
It is not clear how this project benefits the residents of Malibu. Nor how it is designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environment. A project that requires this number of variances is not one that is respectful of Malibu’s residents, its rural character and natural environmental setting and its Malibu Building Codes.
Malibu has building codes and guidelines for the purpose of steering the development within the City. The City Planning Department should be working to benefit Malibu residents and insist that developers design to meet these codes.
Malibu’s Mission and Vision Statements have been ignored by the Planning Department in their review of this project. This project is far from residential in scale. It accelerates urbanization in the center of Malibu.
If City staff were working to prevent the urbanization of Malibu, they would have recognized that the proposed project is out of scale with central Malibu. Malibu instated codes to prevent super sized structures to over shadow the low, beach community type buildings for which Malibu is known. For instance the neighboring Chabad building and the Casa Escobar are both under 18 feet high.
The Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the repeat of the overpowering County approved clock tower.
The total effect of the Malibu Inn Motel when combined with the clock tower building is to create a concrete canyon where before there was a naturally sloping coastal bluff. This is appropriate for a large city not a coastal destination that attracts tourists for its rural character and natural environmental setting.
How could the City staff not recognize that not only does the FAR exceed the allowable FAR, but the height has been miscalculated as well? The height should have been calculated from grade making this structure 46 feet to the top B.4 B.3 B.2B.1 4/27/2021
313
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
2 of the elevator shaft not the allowable 28 feet. In actuality this project is a twostory motel with a one-story garage and a 4th floor pool deck that is serviced by an elevator and surrounded by a 36-42” high guardrail. The so-called subterranean parking is only 4 feet below grade with most of the parking above grade.
The property currently meets the adjacent properties at grade. The renderings illustrate the walls required to retain the slope on the sides as well as behind the structure. Whereas the sidewalk currently meets the grade flush, the outdoor parking is a car height above and requires a sloped driveway for entry. This does not demonstrate a project that is trying to fit into the community as required by CV-1: “designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.” This project is instead a dominating presence especially when combined with the overpowering retaining wall built into the hillside.
It is also more difficult for a car or delivery vehicle to make the turn off PCH up a slope. This could cause back ups on PCH in an already congested area. In addition the slope could become a skateboarders dream.
Malibu has a distinctive character dominated by its mountains and bluffs that descend to PCH. The developer seemingly ignores the site’s existing geological restraints by proposing to construct a 56.5-foot high retaining wall that cuts off the toe of the sloping natural coastal bluff.
The coastal bluffs give Malibu its character. How can the City permit cutting into the face of a coastal bluff in the center of town? This is not “consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting”.
This is an unstable bluff in a seismically active area. Malibu is known for its heavy rains and mudslides. What studies have been made to confirm the continued stability of the hillside once the project cuts into the existing slope to construct the retaining wall? What studies have been made to ensure the stability of the residential structure perched above this site? The Malibu code allows for 1000 cu yds. of grading. The resulting cut and fill should be balanced and remain on site and not be exported. Grading into the bluff is not exempt. The Malibu Inn Motel project proposes 12,649 cu yds. of cut into a natural bluff. This is an amount they cannot reuse on the limited site.
Hauling this amount of cut would require over a thousand truckloads each containing 10 cu yds. To say this would disrupt traffic and business in a key tourist area across from the renowned Malibu pier would be an understatement.
By code retaining walls in Malibu cannot exceed 6 feet. To fit this hotel into the site requires not only the rear 56.5-foot massive retaining wall but also high side retaining walls. The proposed hotel is embraced by retaining walls on three B.11 B.10 B.9 B.8 B.7 B.6 B.5
B.4
314
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
3 sides to make its elevated construction possible. Consequently the hotel’s ground level in effect sits one story above the adjacent properties dominating the streetscape. This not only requires excessive excavation but also would create an uncomfortable condition on the adjacent properties. Instead of a continuous flow both visually and actively from property to property on grade, this project bumps the grade up using terracing.
It is necessary to review more carefully the Traffic numbers provided by the developer. The traffic and congestion in the Pier Area and the number of accidents and deaths increase annually. Since the Woolsey Fire and the beginning of the Covid Pandemic, there has been a change in traffic flow. There is more construction in Malibu at a time when more people have chosen to work from home. Others have more flexible working hours that has led to an increase in tourism especially to Malibu’s beaches and hiking trails. What used to be summer time weekend traffic has become year-round traffic. In pre-summer traffic it regularly takes 45 minutes on a weekend to travel from Big Rock to Trancas.
Emergency vehicles already are challenged by the weekend gridlock.
Parking is a critical challenge in the area due to the demands for employees as well as visitors. Cars waiting on the street to pull into parking lots block an entire lane on weekends reducing the traffic flow to a crawl.
It is time for the City to address the totality of the parking and circulation in this key tourist zone including the proposed Sea View Hotel and Malibu Inn Motel, the Malibu Beach Inn, Nobu, Soho House, the Malibu Pier and up to and including the Surfrider Beach Parking lot. Let’s learn from Orange County where the beachside communities are now parking lots and major highways have been constructed to circumvent them.
Now is the time for Master Planning that takes into consideration the Vision and Mission statement that respects Malibu’s rural character and natural setting, the continuous urbanization of Malibu, increased tourism traffic, parking challenges, increased pressure on groundwater, and most importantly SAFE EVACUATION.
Residents of Western Malibu can attest to the fear created by congestion as they tried to flee the Woolsey Fire. PCH was moving at a snail’s pace. Many drove through fire on both sides of PCH to reach safety.
In this time of Climate Change, it is necessary to rethink Malibu’s development goals. Recycle, Reuse, Reduce should be foremost in developing a Master Plan for Malibu.
Malibu residents come first. Let’s plan to preserve our community not make money for the developers. The money made by developers after all leaves B.16 B.15
B.14
B.13 B.12
B.11
315
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaratio7
April 27, 2021
30745 Pacific Coast Highway # 279 Malibu CA 90265
4 Malibu. We should encourage projects that respect Malibu and support small businesses.
Malibu is a sliver of paradise tucked in between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Let’s work together to keep it that way.
Thank you,
Charlotte M. Frieze
Founding Member
Malibu Open Space Alliance
B.16
316
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter B
Commenter: Charlotte M. Frieze, Malibu Open Space Alliance Date: April 22, 2021
Response B.1
The commenter states the visitor serving commercial (CV-1) zone district is intended to provide visitor serving users and be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. As described in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project’s proposed motel use would be consistent with the CV1 zone district. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response B.2
The comment states it is unclear how the Project would benefit residents of Malibu and be consistent with the rural character and natural environment. Further, the comment states that a project with many variances is not respectful of City Code.
The Project would expand overnight accommodation access in the City, which would provide additional transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue for the City to provide services and City improvements to residents, as well as benefiting local businesses such as restaurants and retail uses through increased visitation. Additionally, the Project would support resident’s capacity to have overnight accommodation access for visiting family and friends. With regards to consistency with the rural character and natural environment of the area, the project site lies along PCH, a busy 4-lane arterial generally lined with existing 2- to 3-story commercial structures and only very limited natural habitats bordering or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, while many areas of the City are decidedly rural, the project site and vicinity are less so, and proposed development would generally be consistent with surrounding uses. Comments regarding the usefulness of the Project to City residents do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND.
With regards to variances, as described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, of the IS-MND, the Project would require four variance approvals for grading, slope construction, retaining wall height, and surface parking setback. As described in the IS-MND, extensive technical studies particularly in regards to geology and soil impacts (refer to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils) have been completed for the Project. Technical expertise and the IS-MND conclude the Project would be safe to the public and environment with inclusion of the proposed variances. Approval of the Project and associated variances will be determined by the City.
Therefore, the IS-MND provides analysis of impacts and required mitigation measures which directly address issues associated with the proposed variances. Nevertheless, comments regarding concern of the required extent of variances will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 317
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response B.3
The commenter states the Project is inconsistent with Malibu’s Mission and Vision Statements, and would increase urbanization including through the height of the building. The commenter adds the Project when combined with the clock tower creates a concrete canyon and would not be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting.
The Project is consistent with the City’s mission and vision statements and would not accelerate urbanization, nor create inconsistency with the character of the City. The project site is located along PCH, a busy 4-lane arterial generally lined with existing 2-story commercial structures in the City’s CV-1 zone district, which allows for motel development. Given surrounding uses, the Project would not create a “concrete canyon”. As stated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project would require a height variance for development of the retaining walls in excess of six feet in height (Approval of Variance NO. 18-031), and Project approvals and approvals of variances are required by the City’s Planning Commission.
Response B.4
The commenter states the City did not recognize that the Project’s floor-area ratio (FAR) exceeds the allowable FAR as well as that the building’s height was miscalculated. The commenter feels the correct height is 46 feet (including the elevator shaft) not the allowable 28 feet. The commenter also disagrees that the structure is 2-stories and instead should be described as 4 stories to include the parking garage and rooftop deck.
The Project’s FAR is correctly calculated at 0.15, which is consistent with City code. As described in Section
4.11, Land Use and Planning- Impact B, the Project proposes 7,693 square feet (sf) of commercial floor area on a 51,352 sf (1.18 acre) parcel, the resulting FAR would be 0.15, consistent with the maximum FAR permitted. The Project would require approval of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 09-067, ensuring adherence to local and regional policies and goals throughout implementation of the Project.
Therefore, the commenter’s statement in regards to FAR exceedance is not accurate. Consistent with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Project does not include the subterranean parking lot as a floor in the building as it is located below ground and consists of interior parking spaces. Additionally, the rooftop deck is not a floor as defined under the MMC, but instead an additional use area located on a rooftop, which are not typically designated as a floor in commercial development in the City under adopted codes.
Comments regarding concern of the details of the height of the Project as defined under the MMC that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. It should be noted that the IS-MND discusses potential impacts to visual resource and aesthetics, as well as potential consistency with adopted City policy; impacts were found to be less than significant.
Response B.5
The commenter states the required sloping of the driveway for entry to the subterranean parking structure would not be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting required in CV-1 district. The commenter feels the Project is a dominating presence when combined with the retaining wall.
Subterranean parking lots are permitted within the CV-1 district in the City, which require sloped driveways to enter. The commenter states that the Project’s driveway design is inconsistent with policies 318
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
related to the rural character and natural environmental setting. However, as described above, the Project is located along PCH, a busy 4-lane arterial generally lined with existing 2-story commercial structures, similar in size, bulk and scale to development nearby to the east and west of the site, including the Surfrider Inn. Please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics, for further discussion of driveway design and the limited visibility of the retaining wall.
Response B.6
The commenter states the sloped driveway would make vehicle entrance of PCH more difficult and increase congestion. The commenter states that the driveway slope would be a skateboarder’s dream.
The driveway to PCH does not have any steep slopes, and the design of the subterranean parking lot’s driveway would not increase traffic congestion from the existing level at the current surface parking lot.
A through traffic study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer was prepared for the Project as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, which determined the Project would generate no more than 8 trips during the AM peak hour and 10 trips during the PM peak hour that would utilize this driveway. The proposed driveway alteration was reviewed by the City Public Works which ensured the driveway was properly designed so as not to substantially increase traffic hazards along PCH and would have excellent line-ofsight in both directions. With this review, the driveways would not pose any more safety effects than the existing driveway and would be similar to others entering PCH in the vicinity. Further, the Traffic Study concluded the proposed driveway system would improve onsite circulation and the sites connection with PCH and would not significantly impact operational efficiency of PCH’s intersections. Therefore, the Project’s driveway would not significantly impact traffic flows, turning movements, safety or congestion along PCH. Comments regarding concern of skateboard use of the driveway that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration.
Response B.7
The commenter notes that the mountains and bluffs in Malibu form a key part of the City’s rural and natural environmental character, and states the developer ignores the site’s geological restraints by placement of a retaining wall in the toe of a coastal bluff.
The Project would not reduce mountain or coastal bluff views and the building’s roofline would remain well below the top of the slope and would not obstruct or alter any mountain views. Please refer to Section
4.1, Aesthetics, for analysis of the Project’s design in consideration to view protection and potential impacts. The Project would not increase risks to the environment or public associated with potential geologic hazards of landslide or slope collapse by placement of the Project along the toe of the slope. The Project’s geotechnical report thoroughly assesses these potential hazards and the adequacy of the site’s proposed retaining wall and grading to avoid hazards. The geotechnical reports prepared for this Project’s safety and stability include recommendations and approaches that address rainfall and earthquake hazards. For instance, Project design includes an additional freeboard on the rear yard retaining wall to provide added stability and tie backs for soil stability and fluid pressure accommodation.
Response B.8
The comment states the coastal bluffs give Malibu its character, and cutting into the coastal bluff would be inconsistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting. 319
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The IS-MND addresses the potential changes in visual character of the site and slope and notes that views of the upper slope would not be impeded. Further, the Project would be generally visually consistent with existing buildings such as the existing Surfrider Inn to the west and Malibu Plaza to the east, both of which partially block views of the slope. Thus, the Project would not constitute a noticeable change from existing visual conditions along PCH. The City’s code does not restrict development from obstructing a portion of the slope in the CV-1 zone district. The commenter asserts with evidence or citation of precedent that placement of a 2-story building, which is similar in size and height to other previously approved buildings along PCH within the CV-1 zone districtto the east and west would be inconsistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting. However, as noted above, this segment of PCH is already relatively intensively developed, and while scenic, is not one of the City’s more natural or rural areas and the Project would effectively constitute infill between the large scale Malibu Plaza to the east and the Surfrider Inn to the west.
Response B.9
The commenter states the Project is located adjacent to an unstable bluff in a seismically active area that is known for heavy rains and mudslides. The comment asks what studies have been done to confirm the continued stability of the hillside after placement of the retaining wall as well as to residential structures above the site.
While the City may be seismically active and support areas prone to mudslides, the bluff at the project site has been subject to extensive study by qualified geotechnical experts and has not been found to be particularly unstable (see Appendix B). These studies have set forth a detailed set of required recommendations to address slope stability, provide adequate design of the retaining wall and ensure protection of structures upslope from the Project. The City’s code does not require all cut and fill to remain onsite for construction projects. As described in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils-City Standard Conditions of Approval, the Project would comply with City Standard Conditions of Approval. Additionally, all recommendations of consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or City geotechnical staff related to grading will be incorporated into the final design. Further, the Project would be required to follow design provisions through the International Building Code (IBC) and California Building Code (CBC) (as adopted by the City of Malibu and codified in MMC Section 15.04.010) to employ design standards that consider seismically active areas to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life, including standards related to material composition and hillside tie-backs. Therefore, as described in the IS-MND, the Project would be required to incorporate adequate design measures to reduce impacts from seismic activity risk from slope development. Finally, the IS-MND does not state grading on a slope is an exempt activity, and as stated above would comply with all required approvals and design methods.
Response B.10
The comment states the Malibu code allows for 1,000 cubic yards (cy) of grading, and cut and fill should be balanced onsite. The comment also states grading on a bluff is not exempt and that the Project would require thousands of truckloads of graded materials containing 10 cy, which would disrupt traffic.
The IS-MND acknowledges the Project’s exceedance of the City code’s 1,000 cy per commercial acres of non-exempt grading would require a variance approval (Variance No. 18-029), as stated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals. However, the City’s code does not require all cut and fill to remain onsite for 320
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
construction projects. The IS-MND identifies the required projected number of heavy haul truck trips for export of materials during project construction and addresses associated potential impacts to transportation, air quality and other issues. As described in Section 1.3, Project Description, export of approximately 12,255 cy of excavated soil would require use of approximately 613 to 875 heavy haul truck trips, assuming use of 14 to 20 cy haul trucks, though notes the average amount varies. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, traffic control measures would be required, such as through use of flaggers for trucks entering and leaving the site along PCH.
Response B.11
The comment states City code does not allow retaining walls to exceed 6 feet. The comment states the proposed 56.5 foot retaining wall touches the hotel on 3 sides, which would elevate the Project’s ground level to be one story above adjacent properties resulting in an uncomfortable condition and visual impacts.
The IS-MND acknowledges the Project’s retaining walls would not be exempt from approval and that the Project is required to apply for approval of a variance for this retaining wall, as stated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals. The commenter incorrectly states the retaining wall would be 56.5 feet; as stated in Section 1.3, Project Description, the retaining wall would be installed at the north side of the motel structure along to retain the graded slope and would extend up to 46 feet in height above the elevation of the first floor, constructed to secure the slope following excavation. The proposed structure and proposed trees would obscure the vast majority of the retaining wall, resulting in less than significant impacts, as further discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics.
Response B.12
The commenter asserts the Project’s traffic numbers need to be more carefully considered due to existing traffic and the number of accidents annually. The commenter adds since the Woolsey Fire and beginning of COVID-19 pandemic, more construction has occurred in the City and tourism has increased.
The IS-MND and associated traffic study carefully document and support project increases in traffic volumes as well as accident patterns and frequency along PCH. The COVID-19 pandemic is anticipated to have included abnormal traffic volumes in the City. Therefore, the IS-MND, as stated in Section 4.17, Transportation, uses traffic counts collected in 2019 to provide a more representative typical long-term level of traffic “pre-pandemic”. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections.
The IS-MND acknowledges that PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period.
Based upon the traffic study contained in Appendix C, the Project is projected to generate a net increase of approximately 68 average daily trips (ADT), which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation.
321
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response B.13
The comment states emergency vehicles already experience challenges from weekend traffic congestion.
The Project would not result in a significant impact to emergency vehicle access to PCH or resident evacuation during disasters including wildfires. As stated in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project’s incremental increase in traffic would not substantially increase congestion during disasters and would have less than significant impacts as it would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Caltran’s review of the Project’s Encroachment Permit would ensure circulation modifications to the driveways (e.g., removing one western driveway and inserting one eastern driveway) would not impact emergency operations on PCH. Additionally, options available to emergency vehicles such as using sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in opposite traffic lanes would ensure the effect of any incremental increases in traffic remain less than significant. Please refer to Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for further discussion of emergency vehicle access to the site and PCH.
Response B.14
The comment states the City needs to address the parking and circulation issues in the key tourist zone around the Malibu Inn Motel and other major businesses.
The IS-MND thoroughly addresses potential parking and circulation impacts associated with the Project, including cumulative impacts and finds all impacts are less than significant, with mitigation. Finding a parking solution for this area is not in the purview of this IS-MND and the comment will be made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response B.15
The comment states master planning must take into consideration Malibu’s rural character and natural setting, continuous urbanization of Malibu, increased tourism traffic, parking, groundwater, and most importantly safe evacuation. The commenter states traffic along PCH caused a safety concern during the Woolsey Fire due to the slow speed on both sides of PCH.
The IS-MND considers all aspects considered by the commenter, including biological resources, aesthetic considerations, traffic, parking, groundwater, evacuation, and safety. Additionally, all comments will be included in decision-maker considerations on Project approval. The IS-MND considers the City’s natural setting within Section 4.4, Biological Resources, which considers species and natural habitats, rural character within Section 4.1, Aesthetics, which considers the area’s topography and existing development, and groundwater within Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, which considers the Project’s potential impacts on surface and subterranean water quality. Traffic and safety considerations are included within Section 4.17, Transportation, including congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and geometric hazards from site ingress and egress, and safety and evacuations – particularly those from wildfire.
Further, Sections 4.20, Wildfire, 4.17, Transportation, and 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, note that the Project would not exacerbate existing wildfire threat nor impede potential evacuation efforts. 322
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response B.16
The comment states the City should rethink development to consider recycle, reuse, and reduce. The comment asserts Malibu residents should come first and the community should be preserved above making money for developers.
The IS-MND provides detailed analysis of all potential Project impacts and requires mitigation measures to address such where required. Comments regarding opposition to the proposed Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 323
From: cynthia randall
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Re: Hotel Project
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 1:27:57 PM
Mr. Hernandez:
As a Malibu resident, I oppose the new hotel proposed to be built across from the pier. During summer and weekends, that area is already way too congested with people looking for parking and making dangerous u-turns.
Instead, we desperately need a PARKING lot (preferably multi-story) there!!! Other towns make sure to have public parking.
Why doesn’t Malibu???
Thank you,
Cynthia Randall Hutchison
--
Peace and blessings,
Cynthia Randall
1.2 1.1
324
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 1
Commenter: Cynthia Randall, Malibu resident
Date: March 7, 2021
Response 1.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter states that they oppose the Project to be built across from the pier due to the area’s existing traffic congestion and associated safety concerns for parking and U-turns by the public.
However, the proposed Project would provide safe and legal vehicular access and would not substantially increase traffic on PCH. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation and access to PCH and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections.
The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related issues. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 1.2
The commenter suggests the site should be a parking lot to address existing public parking challenges in the City.
The Project would not substantially affect parking demand in the area, would provide adequate parking and would include a total of 24 parking spaces for Malibu Inn under a Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA).
Malibu Inn’s parking is currently addressed at the site through a JUPA, as described in the IS-MND.
Further, the Project complies with MMC requirements for parking as described in Section 1.3, Project Description of the IS-MND.
“The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program.
Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant floor area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required from the adjacent Malibu Inn property. Additionally, per MMC Section 17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – one parking space for each lodging unit (keyed room) is required, totaling 20 spaces, in addition to one space for the average, per-shift number of employees, totaling 3 spaces. As a result, the Project is required to provide a minimum of 47 parking spaces to be consistent with MMC requirements.”
In addition, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would increase the amount of onsite parking by 7 spaces from existing capacity, and similar to existing 325
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
conditions, the property owners are contemplating the installation of car lifts in excess of the minimum required parking spaces, which they would make available for paid public parking during periods of lower occupancy.
Nevertheless, comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the adequacy of analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 326
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 3:13:20 PM
To Whom it my concern
I object to the propose construction. I have live in Malibu since 1976. It is necessary to maintain a infrastructure to support residents and tourists. Turning one of the few available parking areas in that area into a motel is ridiculous.
That area has a major amount of congestion on it’s good days. Adding to it makes no sense with such a limited payback for the overall community.
Sincerely,
David L. King
2.2 2.1
327
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 2
Commenter: David King, Malibu resident
Date: March 7, 2021
Response 2.1
The commenter states that they oppose the Project due to the conversion of a public parking lot to motel use.
The project site is currently operated as a private parking lot where the public is allowed to park for a fee.
The Project would include a total of 24 parking spaces for Malibu Inn under a JUPA. Malibu Inn’s parking is currently addressed at the site through a JUPA, as described in the IS-MND. Further, the Project complies with MMC requirements for parking as described in Section 1.3, Project Description of the IS-MND.
The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program. Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant service area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required on the project site from the adjacent Malibu Inn property. Additionally, per MMC Section 17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – 23 spaces are required of the project site. In addition, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would increase the amount of onsite parking by 7 spaces from existing capacity and similar to existing conditions, and some stacked parking spaces may be made available for paid public parking during periods of lower occupancy.
Nevertheless, comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 2.2
The commenter states the area experiences a major amount of congestion typically, so an additional source of traffic would have limited payback for the community.
The Project would not add a significant number of trips to the area. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The IS-MND acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation 328
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 329
From: christine kauffman
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:13:54 PM
I have lived in Malibu for over 20 years. I stopped driving 7 years ago because I found the traffic to be too unpredictable for someone in their 60s. Between weekend traffic, summer traffic, blissed out surfers, bicycles and pedestrians the confusion and aggression of other drivers this driver threw up her hands and said no more! I value life and limb of myself and others.
Putting a”motel” up is a recipe for disaster and death. These 24 miles of PCH already exceed the death rate of other roads in similar small towns. The road and residents cannot be expected to deal with an increase in traffic, parking and accidents.
Sent from my iPad
3.1 330
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 3
Commenter: Christine Kauffman, Malibu resident
Date: March 8, 2021
Response 3.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project IS-MND. The commenter opposes the Project due to the existing congestion along PCH in the City, particularly during weekend and summer traffic. The commenter asserts the 24 mile stretch of PCH in Malibu exceeds the death rate of other roads in small towns, so the City should not cause an increase in traffic through development of the Project.
The Project would result in a minimal increase in traffic and would be designed to safely accommodate moderate amounts of new traffic onto PCH. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. Additionally, the IS-MND acknowledges the importance of traffic safety to residents and the public along PCH in the City, and addresses the risk of U-turns and pedestrians stops during busy times in Section 4.17, Transportation, and addressed within Impact C, which addresses hazards and geometric design features. The Project would not increase the number of driveways that could increase vehicle congestion, and Appendix C, Transportation Studies, includes further assessment of the Project’s safety and finds no exacerbation of safety associated with U-turns or pedestrian use. The Project would comply with the City’s Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic (e.g., completion of a construction staging plan, transportation permit from Caltrans, etc.). The IS-MND further acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends, particularly in the summer months, and coinciding with weekday afternoon commuter peak period. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact B. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND, will be included within the public record, and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 331
From: Inez McGee
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:01:36 PM
Good afternoon,
I would like to voice my opposition to a new motel at the Malibu Inn site. That is one of the most congested and dangerous sections of PCH and adding a motel would make it more so. On a weekend, or for that matter any sunny beach going day, it is like running the gauntlet thru that stretch of highway. With the pier traffic, pedestrians, Nobu and beachgoers all looking for parking and pulling out into traffic or making illegal u-turns, it is already an insane driving situation. Enough already. Please do not let this project go forward.
Thank you and be well,
Inez McGee
Pt. Dume resident since 1993
4.1 332
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 4
Commenter: Inez McGee, Point Dume resident
Date: March 8, 2021
Response 4.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter opposes the Project due to its location on a dangerous and congested portion of PCH, which the Project would exacerbate. The commenter feels existing parking and traffic conditions make safe driving in the area a challenge.
The project site has adequate line of site along PCH and the limited increase in traffic associated with project development would not cause a substantial increase in congestion or traffic safety hazards. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. Section 4.17, Transportation- Existing Setting, further acknowledges the importance of traffic safety to residents and the public along PCH in the City. As noted by the IS-MND and Appendix C, the City completed a PCH Safety Study including review of collision data from 2012, 2013, and 2014, and PCH Safety Study found that there were 20 collisions along the segment of PCH between Serra Road and Sweetwater Canyon Drive during the study period. The most common types of collisions in this segment of PCH were rear-end collisions associated with excessive vehicle speed and sudden stops for mid-block pedestrian crossings or vehicles making left-or U-turns, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Existing Setting. Therefore, the surrounding Project area along PCH has underlying collision rates based on pedestrians, unsignalized left turns, and U-turns. To avoid exacerbating this condition,
“Direct vehicle access from PCH would be implemented through the installation of an unsignalized right-in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the project site’s southern boundary. The existing driveways at the adjacent Malibu Inn, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Pedestrian access would be provided via the sidewalk along PCH and associated walkways entering the site.” Therefore, the Project would not increase unsignalized pedestrian crossings, unsignalized left-turns, or U-turns. The Project would also comply with the City’s Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic (e.g., completion of a construction staging plan, transportation permit from Caltrans, etc.) to the greatest extent feasible.
The IS-MND also acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period.
The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact B. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, 333
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 334
From: daniel calderon
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New motel
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:42:48 PM
Hello there.
I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed new motel plans opposite Malibu Pier.....
I moved from Silverlake LA, to Malibu for a particular lifestyle, one that had less population density, less commercial real estate and more open space...... If I had wanted to live in a ‘beach city’ I would have moved to Manhattan Beach, LongBeach, or San Pedro.
I am very concerned that certain members of Malibu council and other powers-that-be seem to want to turn Malibu into a shopping-by-the-sea-hotel destination.
We already have the massive development, next to the large Wholefoods development being built.... More empty storefronts serving no-one in the community, and depriving humans and wildlife of beautiful nature.....
PCH is a nightmare drive on weekends (ask the majority of residents and you will find most do not leave their houses on these days).
Reckless drivers, including car clubs, descend in vast numbers with little police oversight (no local force of our own) and no local tow truck company!!!(because they were forced out due to commercial real estate development).
The particular stretch by the pier where the new motel wants to build is particularly problematic due to high traffic density (much of which is caused by NOBU and Soho House, that still can’t seem to abide by the rules that they agreed to abide by when planning permission was granted).
Parking is already limited at best..... (I know, the motel will have its own parking lot, but the reality will be more cars and less parking for all)!
I can’t begin to stress enough that PCH and the surrounding infrastructure cannot take this never ending commercialization.
We, the residents, the people that live here, should have our voices heard.
We don’t want another massive shopping center. We don’t want a Tesla car showroom. We don’t want a motel. If we have to have commercial development, we want businesses that serve our community ie; a local tow truck company.
Otherwise we just would rather have wild open space for all of us humans and non-humans alike to enjoy.
Thank you for your time.
Katarina Vinegrad/Calderon.
"What the caterpillar calls the end, the rest of the world calls a butterfly." Lao Tsu
"What the caterpillar calls the end, the rest of the world calls a butterfly." Lao Tsu
5.1 335
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 5
Commenter: Katarina Vinegrad Calderon, Malibu resident
Date: March 8, 2021
Response 5.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter voices concern of the Project due to existing conditions on PCH in the City. The commenter is concerned some of the Malibu City Council-members and other powers want to turn Malibu into a shopping by the sea hotel destination. The commenter cites existing problems of weekend roadway congestion, traffic safety challenges, and particular congestion across from the proposed site associated with the pier.
The project site has adequate line of site along PCH and the limited increase in traffic associated with project development would not cause a substantial increase in congestion or traffic safety hazards. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. Section 4.17, Transportation- Existing Setting, acknowledges the importance of traffic safety to residents and the public along PCH in the City. The City completed a PCH Safety Study including review of collision data from 2012, 2013, and 2014, and PCH Safety Study found that there were 20 collisions along the segment of PCH between Serra Road and Sweetwater Canyon Drive during the study period (Appendix C). The most common types of collisions in this segment of PCH were rear-end collisions associated with excessive vehicle speed and sudden stops for mid-block pedestrian crossings or vehicles making left-or U-turns, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Existing Setting. Therefore, the surrounding Project area along PCH has underlying collision rates based on pedestrians, unsignalized left turns, and U-turns. To avoid exacerbating this condition,
“Direct vehicle access from PCH would be implemented through the installation of an unsignalized right-in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the project site’s southern boundary. The existing driveways at the adjacent Malibu Inn, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Pedestrian access would be provided via the sidewalk along PCH and associated walkways entering the site.” Therefore, the Project would not increase unsignalized pedestrian crossings, unsignalized left-turns, or U-turns. The Project would also comply with the City’s Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic (e.g., completion of a construction staging plan, transportation permit from Caltrans, etc.) to the greatest extent feasible.
The IS-MND acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period.
The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well 336
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 337
From: Patricia Salazar
To: Adrian Fernandez; Lilly Rudolph
Subject: FW: hotels on the pch
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:08:14 PM
Public comment. Please have this uploaded to onbase for each project.
From:
Date: March 9, 2021 at 12:52:11 PM PST
To: Karen Farrer <[email protected]>, Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>, Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>, Steve Uhring <[email protected]>, Kathleen Stecko <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>, Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>, Richard Mollica <[email protected]>, Fred Roberts
Subject: hotels on the pch
Reply-To:
the number one job of the city counsel is safety
now 2 new hotels are proposed for the pch. people on sell phones not knowing malibu
looking to turn in and out on the pch. the pch in the carbon beach area has an already
high number of accidents and now you want to consider approving 2 new hotels
in case of fire. most fires come over the mountains from the valley on santa ana winds
how are you proposing to evacuate malibu residents down the pacific coast highway.
the citys failure was quite evident in the last fire on November 2018. the city has done nothing to mitigate the traffic and several new buildings have already
been approved in the civic center commercial area adding to congestion on the highway.
For the sake of safety please do not approve either of the proposed hotels
BEST REGARDS
TERRY LUCOFF
6.3 6.2 6.1
338
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 6
Commenter: Terry Lucoff
Date: March 9, 2021
Response 6.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter states PCH has a high number of accidents and opposes the development of the two currently proposed hotels in the City. To note, this Project and IS-MND pertain to solely the Malibu Inn Motel Project.
The project site has adequate line of site along PCH and the limited increase in traffic associated with project development would not cause a substantial increase in congestion or traffic safety hazards. Section
4.17, Transportation- Existing Setting, acknowledges the importance of traffic safety to residents and the public along PCHin the City. The City completed a PCH Safety Study including review of collision data from 2012, 2013, and 2014, and PCH Safety Study found that there were 20 collisions along the segment of PCH between Serra Road and Sweetwater Canyon Drive during the study period (Appendix C). The most common types of collisions in this segment of PCH were rear-end collisions associated with excessive vehicle speed and sudden stops for mid-block pedestrian crossings or vehicles making left-or U-turns, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Existing Setting. Therefore, the surrounding project area along PCH has underlying collision rates based on pedestrians, unsignalized left turns, and U-turns. To avoid exacerbating this condition,
“Direct vehicle access from PCH would be implemented through the installation of an unsignalized right-in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the project site’s southern boundary. The existing driveways at the adjacent Malibu Inn, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Pedestrian access would be provided via the sidewalk along PCH and associated walkways entering the site.” Therefore, the Project would not increase unsignalized pedestrian crossings, unsignalized left-turns, or U-turns. The Project would also comply with the City’s Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic (e.g., completion of a construction staging plan, transportation permit from Caltrans, etc.) to the greatest extent feasible.
Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 6.2
The commenter states most wildfires come over the mountains from the valley due to the Santa Ana winds and requests information on how the Project would evacuate Malibu residents down PCH.
The Project would contribute in a minor incremental way to wildfire evacuation related congestion and would be subject to any City adopted emergency evacuations plans. The commenter identifies the Santa 339
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Monica Mountains along the southern edge of the City that is known for the chaparral-urban interface of dry vegetation and urban development, which during dry weather conditions, seasonal Santa Ana winds, and high temperatures contribute to a risk of wildfire, as described in Section 4.20, Wildfire- Existing Setting, of the IS-MND. As described in Section 4.20, Wildfires- Impact A, the Project would be located in a designated Fire Hazard Severity Area. However, the Project is required to comply with existing County of Los Angeles and City of Malibu Emergency Response Plans. The City of Malibu’s 2018 emergency Operations Plan provides an operational approach to response and recovery from potential hazards. The site is directly accessible to a regional transportation resource, PCH, and no new areas of service would be required for emergency personnel. Additionally, the site is designed for throughput access from PCH to the Malibu Inn parking area, which would improve adequate fire department access with the Project’s driveway modification on the eastern end. As such, the Project would be in compliance with the City’s Emergency Response Plans and would not exacerbate wildfire risk to the public.
Please refer to Section 4.20, Wildfires, for further discussion and analysis of wildfire setting and impacts.
Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the ISMND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 6.3
The commenter states the City has not adequately mitigated traffic from new development and is adding congestion to PCH.
As noted within the IS-MND, Caltrans has responsibility for managing traffic flows along PCH and implementing required improvements. The City can only condition individual development projects to provide frontage and other improvements as has been done in this case. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as further described in Section 4.17, Transportation.
Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for additional discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
340
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New Malibu Inn Hotel Project
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2021 4:59:08 PM
I and all members of my family are very much against the new Malibu Inn Hotel project. As we all know PCH is already gridlocked most of the time. We have Norm Hainey's hotel going up very close by and of course our favorite, La Paz (don't remember the new name) in the Civic Center. Do we want complete gridlock on PCH? We definitely need a traffic study. The height of this is a blight on PCH. Why does it need to be so high. Of course Malibu will get more revenue. Seems to be the only thing our city cares about. We've forgotten about the quality of life for people that live here. Please deny this project.
Carla McCloskey
7.3 7.2 7.1
341
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 7
Commenter: Carla McCloskey (1), Malibu resident
Date: March 14, 2021
Response 7.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter opposes the Project due to the existing traffic congestion on PCH in the City, which will be exacerbated by additional proposed hotel development (e.g., Norm Hainey’s hotel).
The Project would result in a minor incremental increase in traffic and proposed driveway improvement would be designed to ensure safe access and avoid disruption of existing traffic flows. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 7.2
The commenter feels the proposed Project height would be a blight on PCH, and requests additional information on why the structure is so high.
The Project would be similar in size, bulk and scale to other surrounding developments. The Project would be a height of two stories or nearly 24 feet above finished or existing grade for plat roofs and 28 feet above finished or existing grade for sloped roofs, with the elevator shaft protruding the highest. The remaining 36 percent of the site would remain undeveloped open space. The Project’s design has limited height to not exceed nearby building height, and earth tone color walls to match the surrounding environment.
While the Project would be of greater height than the existing site’s surface parking lot and requires approval of Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 18-025 for a building height over 18 feet, the site height is aesthetically consistent with surrounding development’s height. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with the Project’s height would be less than significant. Please refer to section 4.1, Aesthetics for further discussion and analysis of building height and design features.
Response 7.3
The commenter states the Project is revenue driven, feels this is the City’s top priority, and expresses the City has forgotten about quality of life for residents. 342
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The Project is providing visitor serving uses consistent with underlying Visitor Serving 1 zone and the State Coastal Act priorities. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 343
From: Lester Tobias
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Negative Declaration: opposition comments Date: Sunday, March 14, 2021 3:34:10 PM
I am writing in opposition to the proposed hotel on the site adjacent to the Malibu Inn.
My first point of opposition is that there is no relief in our LIP for a retaining wall that is fifty feet tall (the dimensioning of their figure 3 is incorrect), with thirteen feet exposed, and a secondary retaining wall behind it.
The spirit of our retaining wall limitations is rooted in “landform alteration” as well as visual appearance. When our code goes to great length to talk about working with existing topography, and limiting grading to a mere one thousand cubic yards, this is done to minimize the impacts of construction on the “natural" topography (or at least the topography that exists when a project is proposed).
The findings for the variance for the grading and the retaining wall simply can not be met.
My second point of opposition is that the existing JUPA and parking space analysis is significantly under counted, and since a JUPA is not a right, but a granted privilege, I think the city would be making a mistake in approving any transfer of rights or a new JUPA without significant increases to the required parking numbers.
I am a proponent of a comprehensive study and possible new zoning designation for the landward side of the Pacific Coast Highway between, say Carbon Mesa and the Civic Center to something along the lines of a “Hospitality Zone” with the types of setbacks, landform alterations, and other amenities like shuttle services and pedestrian bridges to allow for safe, reasonable commercial development of small hotels and restaurants while safely moving through-traffic along that corridor.
Until we have this new zoning, I oppose all of these slap-dash, multi-variance submittals that do nothing for Malibu, and everything for the property developer.
Thanks.
LT
--
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
29160 Heathercliff, Suite 400
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 317-0507
8.3 8.28.1
344
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 8
Commenter: Lester Tobias, Tobias Architecture, Inc.
Date: March 14, 2021
Response 8.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter opposes the Project partially because the City’s Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan has no relief for a retaining wall that is fifty feet tall (states the Figure 3 dimensions are incorrect) with thirteen feet exposed. The commenter asserts the findings for variance for the Project’s grading and the retaining wall cannot be met effectively.
The comment notes that the proposed retaining wall could impact the visual character of the area, although the wall would not be visible to passersby on PCH. The comment incorrectly states Figure 3 is inaccurate in regards to Figure 3’s retaining wall height. As described in Section 1.3, Project Description, of the IS-MND, the back support wall would be a height of 46 feet above finished grade and approximately
52.5 feet above the finished floor elevation of the subterranean parking level. Therefore, Figure 3 is accurate in its depiction of the retaining wall. Further, a variance would be required for the proposed installation of a retaining wall taller than 6 feet and on a slope steeper than 2.5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) slopes.
Section 4.7, Geology and Soils-Impact A, provides discussion and analysis of required building compliances and recommendations of Appendix B to ensure the Project’s retaining wall sufficiently meets building development standards for public safety including during earthquakes and landslides. The following excerpt from Impact A for earthquake related impacts provides an example of how the Project will ensure geotechnical safety.
“The residential structure located north of and above the slopes on and adjacent to the project site has been identified on top of a potentially unstable slope, and excavation of the toe to this slope for the new hotel, subterranean parking and retaining wall have the potential to cause slope failure if exacerbated by rainfall. However, the Project would be designed to not impact the structure above, as it has undergone extensive geotechnical review to ensure stability, incorporates stabilizing and wing retaining walls for heightened slope stability, and would be required to follow design provisions through the International Building Code (IBC) and California Building Code (CBC) (as adopted by the City of Malibu and codified in MMC Section 15.04.010) to employ design standards that consider seismically active areas to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life. With adherence to applicable building codes and the recommendations of the Project-specific geotechnical report, direct and indirect impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss of life, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.”
Nevertheless, comments regarding opposition to the Project will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 345
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 8.2
The commenter’s additional point of opposition is the existing JUPA and parking space analysis is that parking demand is significantly undercounted. The commenter adds a JUPA is a granted privilege and not a right, so asserts that the City is making a mistake in approving any transfer of rights of a new JUPA without significant require parking increases.
The IS-MND fully assesses potential parking impacts and there is no evidentiary basis to assert otherwise.
The Project would continue to be subject to the existing JUPA with Malibu Inn under which the project site is required to provide sufficient parking to support land uses on both properties. A JUPA was previously approved by the City for the Malibu Inn to use 31 parking spaces on the adjacent surface parking lot. The JUPA will continue to be honored except the total number of offsite parking spaces will be reduced to 24, given a change in restaurant service area to retail, which has a lower parking demand.
The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program. Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant service area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required on the project site for the adjacent Malibu Inn property. Additionally, per MMC Section 17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – 23 spaces are required of the project site property. Please refer to Section 1.3 Project Description, for full description of the JUPA. Comments pertaining to the City’s rights to approve a JUPA are noted as well as the comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to the decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 8.3
The commenter is a proponent of a comprehensive study and possible new zoning designation for the landwards side of PCH as a “Hospitality Zone.” However, until this new zoning would be in place the commenter opposes variance submittals for the City.
The Project is consistent with existing zoning and the long-term concept of a new hospitality zone.
Comments pertaining to a recommended new zoning designation named “Hospitality Zone” are noted, and the IS-MND otherwise considers land use impacts, of which the IS-MND’s Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, did not identify a potentially significant impact. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 346
From: Jamie Ottilie
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: malibu beach inn hearing
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:19:22 AM
I understand that the proposal for the Malibu Beach Inn is coming before the planning commission.
I have the following questions and comments:
Has a traffic study for the area been completed that takes into account all of the driveways, left turns, pedestrians jay walking to the beach, people making illegal u turns etc in the area? How can additional development be considered for this area when Nobu and Little Beach House continue to create traffic nightmares every warm weekend? There needs to be resolution.
In looking at the design – I do not understand how the property will be built without substantial variances for height – size of the retaining walls – and parking for both employees and guests. I am not in favor of malibu granting ANY variances in this area that increases development density.
What will happen to the Malibu Inn building if they lose the overflow parking lot? It appears that neither of these properties will have enough parking once complete.
Since most of our traffic comes from Santa Monica – what are the plans for people making left turns out of the hotel? Just making them illegal will not work – as we see from McDonalds, the former KFC location, V’s etc.
How will traffic enter the hotel? There is no room for a right hand turn lane without taking away public parking – is the hotel going to offer up FREE public parking to replace these spots?
I do not see how this project can be made traffic neutral nor how they will be able to pass an environmental impact study given the amount of grading required. I would urge the planning commission to view this project as skeptically as those of us who have lived in Malibu and watched our traffic and quality of life slowly get degraded. Without a longterm solution to congestion and traffic on this section of PCH – I believe that ALL development should be halted in the area until solutions can be found.
Sincerely,
Jamie Ottilie
9.79.6 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1
347
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 9
Commenter: Jamie Ottilie (1), Malibu resident
Date: March 15, 2021
Response 9.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter asks if a traffic study has been completed for the area that takes into account all driveways, left turns, pedestrians jay walking to the beach, and people making illegal U-turns in the area.
The draft IS-MND fully accounts for and addresses existing and potential future access. As described in Section 4,17, Transportation, and Appendix C, Transportation Studies, K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. provided a comprehensive transportation study for the Project. Additionally, the City commissioned a PCH Safety Study based on a review of collision data from 2012, 2013, and 2014 for the City’s section of PCH. The transportation study and analysis takes into account all project driveways as well as adjacent driveways, unsignalized and signalized pedestrian walkways, left hand turns, and U-turns. The Project’s transportation studies and analysis do not take into account illegal pedestrian or car actions as illegal actions are not included under CEQA. Please also refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, and/or Appendix C for further transportation impact discussion and analysis.
Response 9.2
The commenter asks how additional development can be considered in their area due to the current traffic congestion from Nobu and Little Beach House.
The IS-MND fully accounts for and addresses existing and potential future access. As described in Section
4.17, Transportation-Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The IS-MND acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 348
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 9.3
The commenter requests clarification on how the property will be built without substantial variances for height, size of retaining walls, and parking. The commenter does not support any variances that increase development density.
Although the Project will require approval of variances, its location at the base of a slope would minimize visual changes and the proposed project would be largely visually consistent with nearby uses. As described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals of the IS-MND, the Project would require approval of Variances from the City for project development including but not limited to retaining wall height (No. 18-031) and for surface parking in front yard setback (No. 20-035). With approval of SPR No. 18-025 for building height, the building would be found in compliance with City code. Please refer to Section 1.4, Project Approvals for further discussion of variances.
Response 9.4
The commenter asks what will happen to Malibu Inn if they lose their overflow parking lot. The commenter expresses concern that Malibu Inn or the Project will not have sufficient parking.
The Project would include adequate parking to ensure that typical operation of both Malibu Inn and the Project would not result in parking spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. The Project would include a total of 24 parking spaces for Malibu Inn under a JUPA. Malibu Inn’s parking is currently addressed at the site through a JUPA, as described in the IS-MND. Further, the Project complies with MMC requirements for parking as described in Section 1.3, Project Description of the IS-MND. The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program. Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant service area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 offsite spaces that are required from the adjacent Malibu Inn. Additionally, per MMC Section 17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – 23 spaces are required of the Project. In addition, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would increase the amount of onsite parking by 7 spaces from existing capacity and similar to existing conditions.
Additionally, stacked parking within the subterranean garage may be installed by the property owner, which would provide overflow parking spaces, as necessary for the property. In summary, Malibu Inn will not lose parking space allocation at the project site.
Response 9.5
The commenter asks what the plans are for property guests making left turns out of the hotel. The commenter feels making them illegal will be ineffective.
The Project would include adequate access via two driveways with good line of sight along PCH. As described in Section 1.3, Project Description,
“Direct vehicle access from PCH would be implemented through the installation of an unsignalized right-in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the project site’s southern boundary. The existing driveways at the adjacent Malibu Inn, including one signalized driveway, would also 349
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Pedestrian access would be provided via the sidewalk along PCH and associated walkways entering the site.” The commenters opinion making left-hand exits illegal will be ineffective will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 9.6
The commenter asks how traffic will enter the hotel as there is no room for a right-hand turn lane without taking public parking. The commenter requests the Project provide free public parking to replace any spots that are taken away by a right-hand turn lane.
The Project will provide safe access via two driveways which would accommodate hotel guests. As described above, project site access will be available from an unsignalized right- in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the Project’s southern boundary. No signaled right-hand turn lane is proposed under the Project and no net loss in street parking along PCH would be lost. The Project would not be required to provide free public parking as none will be removed.
Response 9.7
The commenter does not feel the Project can be made traffic neutral nor how an EIR was not required for grading. The commenter urges the Planning Commission to oppose this project.
The IS-MND provides detailed analysis of potential project impacts and no impacts were identified that could require preparation of an EIR. As described above, the IS-MND acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation- Impact B. Further, the Project would apply for a variance approval for grading in excess of 1,000 cy per lot area acreage, and with approval of the variance, Caltrans approval of the road encroachment permit, and adherence to mitigation measures included within the IS-MND, impacts would be considered less than significant, not warranting the issuance of an EIR analysis under CEQA. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
350
From: Jamie Ottilie
To: Justine Kendall; Adrian Fernandez
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:57:01 PM
Malibu Inn Motel – 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
I would add that I am adamantly against offsite parking for the Malibu Beach Inn – this is against the building code and should not be allowed.
Jamie
From: Justine Kendall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Ottilie <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
Hi Jamie,
We are working on responses to your questions – may I confirm the project you are inquiring about? Is it the Malibu Beach Inn, an existing hotel at 22878 PCH which is proposing a new pool and offsite parking (an appeal to be discussed at the City Council meeting next Monday), or is it regarding one or both of the hotels listed here: https://www.malibucity.org/1048/Hotels.
Thank you for clarifying,
Justine
Justine Kendall | Associate Planner | City of Malibu
She/Her
NOTE: The City’s priority is protecting public health and safety. To avoid community spread of coronavirus COVID-19, City Hall is closed. However, in order to provide the public with continuity of service, staff is working remotely Monday through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM. For more information, visit //malibucity.org/coronavirus and sign up for emergency alerts at:
https://www.malibucity.org/alerts.
From: Justine Kendall
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:41 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Jamie Ottilie <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: malibu beach inn hearing
10.1 351
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 10
Commenter: Jamie Ottilie (2), Malibu resident
Date: March 15, 2021
Response 10.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter asserts the project site contains parking that supports the Malibu Beach Inn. However, historically, there has been no JUPA for the project site with the Malibu Beach Inn. Please refer to Section
3.17, Transportation, to see an overview of the Project’s proposed JUPA with the Malibu Inn (retail and restaurant building). Nevertheless, comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
352
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:56:07 PM
Dear Planning Dept,
Please do not consider building a hotel at the most congested area of PCH in Malibu. It is unbearable trying to commute regularly in and out of Malibu and I think building this hotel right at the bottleneck will hugely exacerbate the existing problem.
Kind regards,
Lisa McKean (Owner)
11.1 353
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 11
Commenter: Lisa McKean, Malibu Fountains
Date: March 15, 2021
Response 11.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter opposes the Project due to the existing congestion on the City’s stretch of PCH and existing traffic impacts to commuters.
The Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation of the IS-MND. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The IS-MND acknowledges PCH in the City experiences peak periods of visitor traffic on weekends particularly in the summer months, and coincidental with the weekday afternoon commuter peak period. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section
4.17, Transportation-Impact B. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
354
From: Suzanne Titus
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: New Plan for the Malibu Beach Inn
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06:07 PM
Hello,
I understand there is a planning meeting upcoming and I would like to submit my questions and request for a noise survey for this potential plan.
This will definitely draw a crowd and so to also see a survey for occupancy, daily attendance and parking availability provided for the property only is important and that there are reasonable rates extended, as it will impact other retailers in the area.
I will watch to see the acknowledgment and plans to provide a response.
Thank you,
Suzanne
12.2 12.1
355
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 12
Commenter: Suzanne Titus
Date: March 15, 2021
Response 12.1
Thank you for the comment regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter expresses a concern with potential noise impacts from the Project through a request for a noise survey for the Project.
The IS-MND includes a detailed noise analysis that revealed no potential for significant impacts. Please refer to Section 3.13, Noise, which identifies potential for noise during construction and operation of the Project and provides two mitigation measures to reduce noise related effects. NOI-1 which reduces construction noise through construction machinery and truck noise reduction accessories, staging area location, temporary sound barriers, and public noticing. Additionally, the Project would be required to designate a noise control coordinator. NOI-2 prohibits amplified sound from the Project. If amplified sound is later proposed outdoors, the Applicant must prepare a noise study and must submit an amendment to the proposed conditional use permit.
Response 12.2
The commenter expresses concern of parking availability upon implementation of the Project.
The Project would provide adequate parking. The Project would include a total of 24 parking spaces for Malibu Inn under a JUPA to continue to support the required parking spaces for the Malibu Inn, as described in the IS-MND. Further, the Project complies with MMC requirements for parking as described in Section 1.3, Project Description of the IS-MND. The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program. Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant service area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required from the adjacent Malibu Inn property. Additionally, per MMC Section
17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – 23 spaces are required of the project site for the proposed motel use. In addition, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation- Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would increase the amount of onsite parking by 7 spaces from existing capacity. Additionally, stacked parking within the subterranean garage may be provided for overflow parking spaces, as necessary for the property.
356
From: [email protected]
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:09:57 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 8.51.20 PM.png
This is a follow up to my original email as I have read other disturbing details. How can they predict that there will only be 14/16 additional trips daily? This is absurd. Events always generate more traffic than what they are predicting. I'm also concerned when they say they will only have 3 employees--that doesn't make sense. And the noise that will be generated from a roof top event center? There are many questions that need to be answered and this report seems about as factual as the one a few years ago that said malibu traffic hadn't increased in 25 years. We need an accurate factual study that doesn't presume malibu residents aren't aware of what the actual truth is.
Thank you. Carla McCloskey
Here they claim that they anticipate large events every weekend - more in the summer and YET - predict only 14 more cars during the day and 16 at night. Large events, even medium events such as the one most likely to be held there, weddings, will bring hundreds of cars per each event.
13.3 cont.
13.1 cont. 13.4
13.3 13.2
13.1 357
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 13
Commenter: Carla McCloskey (2), Malibu resident
Date: March 15, 2021
Response 13.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter expresses concern over the general Project transportation and traffic details. The commenter states events generate more traffic than what the IS-MND predicts (14 to 16 additional trips daily).
However, the IS-MND fully describes potential project traffic impacts, including special events.
The Project and IS-MND’s transportation and traffic analysis, as described in Section 4.17, TransportationExisting Setting, on a Traffic Study prepared for the project site (Appendix C). The Traffic Study assesses and describes estimated trip generation, potential congestion impacts, and site access. The following excerpt from Section 4.17, Transportation-Impact A identifies transportation impacts to be less than significant as the Project trip generation would be below TIA Guideline thresholds and OPR guidelines. “According to the Traffic Study and detailed in Table 13, Project Trip Generation, the Project is estimated to generate 14 trips occurring during the AM peak period (6 inbound, 8 outbound) and 16 trips occurring during the PM peak period (6 inbound, 10 outbound) (see Appendix C).
These net Project trips are below the City TIA Guidelines thresholds (30 or more peak-hour trips), which require a preparation of a formal transportation impact analysis. Additionally, per the OPR December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact. Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition trip generation rates, the total daily project trips are estimated as 68. As such, impacts to transportation would be less than significant.” Please refer to Appendix C for further details and discussion of the traffic and transportation analysis for the IS-MND. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 13.2
The commenter expresses concern that the IS-MND only accounts for three employees under the Project.
While it is acknowledged that employment may vary, with consideration for the size of the motel, the number of projected employees would be insignificant in terms or traffic or parking demand. Given the nature of the Project as a boutique hotel with 20-rooms, per-shift operational employees is estimated as three as estimated by the Project’s site plans and technical analysis. Please also refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing, for further discussion and analysis of temporary and long-term employment for the proposed Project. If additional employees are at the property, the owner would be in violation of their permit. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
358
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 13.3
The commenter expresses concern over noise levels from the outdoor rooftop.
Noise levels are assessed by the IS-MND and the Project would not allow for amplified music that may affect nearby properties. Please see Comment Response 12.1 for additional information on this topic.
Response 13.4
The commenter expresses concern that the IS-MND is not factual in its account of City traffic.
The IS-MND fully describes both existing and project future traffic levels. As described above, the Project’s transportation and traffic analysis is provided in Appendix C, which were prepared by an accredited traffic engineering firm with local knowledge (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.). The traffic analysis includes PCH Traffic Study from 2012 to 2014, and the most recent traffic approvals conducted in 2019 and 2020 during IS-MND preparation with consideration of pre-Covid traffic. Therefore, the Project utilizes Project-specific traffic analysis as well as existing studies of PCH in the City. Please refer to Appendix C for further discussion and analysis of methodology and approach of transportation analysis in the IS-MND.
Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the ISMND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
359
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: COMMENT MND - Malibu Inn Hotel
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:24:56 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-17 at 11.33.23 AM.png
Please add this to Malibu Inn Hotel EIR Comments.
COMMENT ON MALIBU INN HOTEL.
Unfortunately, once again, our city has been presented with a staff report dismissing and understating the impacts of new development on Malibu. This project needs an EIR to study noise, traffic, and the impact of a combination of two venues next to each other. A nightclub next to a potential new hotel.
The Malibu Inn Hotel project is proposed at one of the busiest and most dangerous sections of PCH in Malibu. Across from the heavily populated pier, filled Surfrider Beach, the only fast-food spots in Malibu, close proximity to crowded Nobu, Soho House, Malibu Beach Inn, and busy public parking lots. The staff report states that this hotel will hold large events every weekend at the new rooftop bar. These will undoubtedly include weddings, parties, conventions which will bring in hundreds of new cars and yet - staff states only 14 AM and 16 PM new additional daily car trips. This claim flies in the face of the most basic logic and accuracy.
Heavy haul trucks will need to run at least 600 - 875 loads to evacuate mounds of dirt on an already overrun PCH.
While scaled-down hotels can have advantages, this project at this intersection could not possibly be proposed at a more disruptive location. There is no possible way that this new hotel, in this area, will not greatly impact and cause more disturbance on PCH for visitors and residents. And yet this staff claims this project “would not result in any cumulative impacts”. This is a clear example of truth being understated and buried to serve developers, rather than data that protects the city and visitors on PCH.
Please unbury the truth and conduct a proper EIR. Protect this fragile city and Malibu‘s already overloaded infrastructure. Malibu must demand that a full and accurate traffic study is conducted that includes ingress and egress of all uses within a mile of this location including traffic from the pier, Nobu, Malibu Beach Inn, public parking lot, Surfrider Beach, Jack In The Box, Serra entrance, etc.
Thank you for listening, please do the job of planning correctly.
Thank you,
Jae Flora-Katz
14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1
360
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 14
Commenter: Jae FloraKatz
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 14.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter asserts that the project would result in a nightclub next to a new hotel, large events every weekend, and hundreds of new cars. The commenter quotes an excerpt from the IS-MND of potential impacts before further analysis and mitigation is introduced.
The proposed Project would not include a nightclub and would be subject to strict City regulation and enforcement. The IS-MND confirms the commenter’s statement that larger gatherings may occur during summer month weekends, noting that it is a hotel. However, the use of the term “event” in the IS-MND does not align with the commenter’s perception of what may occur – or would be allowed – at the property, nor what is proposed in the project description. The IS-MND and Project does not allow for, anticipate, nor require analysis of the potential for large events, hundreds of cars, or nightclubs. In the case that the property would have an “event” that exceeds the property capacity, a City permit is required.
Additionally,the IS-MND notes that the project site is buffered from surrounding residential areas by open space and the incorporation of landscaping. Finally, amplified sound is not proposed and the Project will be conditioned as such. It is also noted that the adjacent noise of PCH would exceed the noise of typical use that may occur on the rooftop. Finally, the commenter’s recommendations will be forwarded to the decision-makers for consideration.
Response 14.2
The commenter expresses a concern with potential impacts from the Project from haul trucks that may be required during dirt excavation.
The IS-MND includes a thorough discussion of the impacts of haul trucks. As described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the project is required to obtain permit approval for hauling on Caltrans right-of-way, such as along PCH, which may include additional construction-related requirements to obtain approval as mentioned above. Further, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the City applies Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to all applicable projects to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic including but not limited to: “for the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from Caltrans.” Regarding further traffic considerations, please also refer to Appendix C for a detailed analysis of construction impacts. In the case of noise concerns, please also refer to Section 3.13, Noise, which identifies potential for noise during construction and operation of the Project and provides two mitigation measures to reduce noise related effects. NOI-1 which reduces construction noise through construction machinery and truck noise reduction accessories, staging area location, temporary sound barriers, and public noticing. Additionally, the Project would be required to designate a noise control coordinator. If an amplified sound is proposed outdoors, the Applicant must prepare a noise study and must submit an amendment to the proposed 361
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
conditional use permit. Ultimately, potential traffic and noise concerns will be included in decision maker considerations in project approval deliberations.
Response 14.3
The commenter asserts the project will result in cumulatively considerable impacts, and suggests the Project would result in traffic impacts at the intersection for visitors and residents.
The Project would not result in cumulative considerable impacts, including those associated with increased traffic. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation-Impact A, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use. The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Additionally, the IS-MND acknowledges the importance of traffic safety to residents and the public along PCH in the City, and addresses the risk of U-turns and pedestrians stops during busy times in Section 4.17, Transportation, and addressed within Impact C, which addresses hazards and geometric design features. To avoid exacerbating this condition,
“Direct vehicle access from PCH would be implemented through the installation of an unsignalized right-in and right-out driveway at the eastern edge of the project site’s southern boundary. The existing driveways at the adjacent Malibu Inn, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Pedestrian access would be provided via the sidewalk along PCH and associated walkways entering the site.” Therefore, the Project would not increase unsignalized pedestrian crossings, unsignalized left-turns, or U-turns. The Project would not increase the number of driveways that could increase vehicle congestion, and Appendix C, Transportation Studies, includes further assessment of the Project’s safety and finds no exacerbation of safety associated with U-turns or pedestrian use. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 362
From: John Stockwell
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: 22959 PCH HOTEL PROJECT
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:05:51 PM
Hi Adrian, it’s John Stockwell the owner of Malibu Farm on the Malibu pier as well as a Pt Dume resident.
I wanted to just quickly weigh in on the potential hotel project across the street from the pier. As everyone in Malibu knows parking is already a huge issue in that area and I don’t understand how the parking for the current Aviator Nation expansion to food and entertainment will be handled if they no longer have the joint use agreement for the lot next to them.
So many of us have always felt that this location would be perfect for a well designed and well landscape parking garage to accommodate all the visitor serving parking that this area is overwhelmed with and give PCH back to the residents for their parking. The current parking lot next to aviator nation where this potential motel would go is full by 10 AM in the summer with people paying $45 a car so where will all those people go if there is no parking option there anymore?
There are obviously a host of additional issues such as the amount of excavation and retaining walls necessary as well as the impact of the construction on PCH but my bigger issue is this is an incredible opportunity to create parking in the center of the commercial district of Malibu.
15.3 15.2
15.1 363
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 15
Commenter: John Stockwell, Malibu Farm Owner
Date: March 8, 2021
Response 15.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter expresses concern on how parking for Aviator Nation’s expansion to food and entertainment will be handled if they do not have a JUPA with the Project’s property.
Parking under the site’s JUPA is addressed and explained within the IS-MND. As described in Section 1.1, Project Site and Existing Uses, the Aviator Nation of the Malibu Inn building is subject to a JUPA with the project site. Aviator Nation resides in the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and following an update of land use and site approval associated with onsite land uses and the Project, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, the Project would continue to be subject to a JUPA with Malibu Inn that would require the project site to provide 24 spaces to the Malibu Inn property. As the Project would provide 24 spaces to the Malibu Inn under the JUPA for the Project, as described in Section 1.3, Project Description, the Project would be compliant with MMC requirements and the JUPA. Therefore, the Aviator Nation property will be accommodated under the Project’s new JUPA and accounts for operational changes planned at the Malibu Inn.
“Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of restaurant floor area for the restaurant that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required from the adjacent Malibu Inn property.”
Response 15.2
The commenter suggests this property should be a well landscaped parking garage to accommodate visitor-serving parking, particularly in summer.
As described in Section 1.3, Project Description, of the IS-MND, the Project would continue to provide onsite parking for property and adjacent property visitors year-round, as under existing conditions. The Project would provide 47 parking spaces through surface and subterranean parking spaces including 35 regular parking spaces, 3 ADA parking spaces, and 9 compact spaces. Stacked parking spaces may be included in the overall design, which would be additive to the minimum of 47 parking spaces required for the site. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for further discussion and analysis of parking in the IS-MND. Comments regarding suggestion of the property for parking that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration. 364
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 15.3
The commenter states he feels there are other general concerns with the project associated with excavation, retaining walls, and construction impacts on PCH but reiterates this site should be used for parking.
A high priority for land use under the State Coastal Act is visitor-serving uses, which the Project would provide. Site alteration and grading are fully addressed in the IS-MND. Please refer to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, for discussion and analysis of the proposed excavation quantity, retaining wall construction and materials, and overall construction effects. Comments regarding suggestion of the property for parking that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 365
From: LSGLA
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Fwd: Malibu Inn Motel - An Ambitious Proposal
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:21:06 AM
FYI
The contents of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this message, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
Begin forwarded message:
From: LSGLA <[email protected]>
Date: March 17, 2021 at 4:52:04 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Malibu Inn Motel - An Ambitious Proposal
FYI
The contents of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this message, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
Begin forwarded message:
From: LSGLA <[email protected]>
Date: March 17, 2021 at 3:59:14 AM PDT
To: Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel - An Ambitious Proposal
Dear Malibu City Council:
It is inadvisable for the City of Malibu to approve the project known as the ‘Malibu Inn Motel’ as proposed by Burdge & Associates Architects and Surfrider Plaza LLC.
Furthermore, the excavation and removal of 12,255 cubic yards of soil, the sinking of caissons, the ‘carving out’ of a substantial portion of the hillside necessitating the construction of a massive retaining wall, needs extensive due diligence for the feasibility and safety of family homes located above said excavation and build-out.
This project should be evaluated by legal counsel for extensive liability issues; reference the building of a mega mansion
in Beverly Hills on a hillside and the potential jeopardy to surrounding residences.
Additionally, just think - an estimated 600
to 875 heavy haul truck trips to remove approximately 12,225 cubic yards of soil. This vehicle count does not include regular construction - just the excavation... “Hot time in the summertime” seriously? “Minimally affect roadways” - please who drew this conclusion? This project is located in the most heavily congested stretch of Pacific Coast Highway. It is already populated with hospitality service businesses with totally inadequate parking. The City of Malibu has approved these projects, knowing full-well they were not in compliance. The end result - pandemonium; no parking, traffic accidents, congestion lasting hours and residents being trapped at home.
The residents of Malibu suffered the unimaginable trauma of the Woolsey fires.
16.5 Many still harbor resentment about the perceived failures of our city government. Many know
16.4 16.3
16.2 16.1
366
precisely the roar of heavy haul trucks removing debris from burned-out family homes. Now imagine 600 to 875 heavy haul trucks, filled with dirt and debris, 6 days a week, on the main thoroughfare, in and out of Malibu...to excavate for the Malibu Inn Motel.
A year of isolation, the result of a global pandemic and ‘you all’ decided to give final approval and allow construction to begin on a mega project known as Cross Creek Ranch. Smart developer, with impeccable timing, to push this 2008 project through in January 2021 when Malibuites were quarantined.
Please consider the following notations when considering the Malibu Inn Motel:
1 cubic yard of topsoil weighs 2,200lbs.
1 cubic yard of loose dirt weighs 2,800lbs.
Minimally affect roadways - nonsense.
12,225 cubic yards of excavated soil.
600 to 875 HEAVY HAUL TRUCK TRIPS.
Construction to begin SUMMER 2021
A number of us have been friends for years. We’ve raised our children together and we love our little town. Let’s remember; we all want what’s best and most of us have very good intentions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. And most importantly, thank you for your service and dedication to our community.
Be kind whenever possible. It’s always possible. ~ Dalai Lama Best regards,
Lynn Saunders Guilburt
30707 Manzano Drive
Malibu CA 90265
310.892.9808
The contents of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in the message only.
It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this message, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
16.8 16.7
16.6 16.5
Cont.
367
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 16
Commenter: Lynn Saunders Guilburt, Malibu resident
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 16.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter notes the excavation of soil for the project, sinking of caissons, and concern for the feasibility and safety of property surrounding the project site, including the need for extensive due diligence.
The proposed Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods. As noted in IS-MND Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project requires approval of Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030, 18-031 associated with approvals for slope stability, retaining walls, and soil excavation. Additionally, as noted in Appendix B, Geotechnical Reports, a series of explorations, studies, and approvals of geotechnical review for the project site are referenced, with the most recent versions attached within the Appendix. The reports for the Project include successive review and final approval from a geotechnical perspective. The Project includes a series of protections for the hillside, including reduced exposed face, stabilization wings, and secondary slope barriers. Please also see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, for additional information on stability, review, and soil analysis.
Response 16.2
The commenter expresses a concern with potential impacts from the Project from haul trucks that may be required during dirt excavation.
The Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding haul truck trips and public safety. As described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project is required to obtain permit approval for oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans right-of-way, such as along PCH, which may include additional construction-related requirements to obtain approval as mentioned above. Further, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the City applies Local Coastal Plan standard conditions to all applicable projects to minimize impacts to transportation and traffic including but not limited to: “for the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversizedtransport vehicles on State highways, the applicant/property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from Caltrans.” Regarding further traffic considerations, please also refer to Appendix C for a detailed analysis of construction impacts. In the case of noise concerns, please also refer to Section 3.13, Noise, which identifies potential for noise during construction and operation of the Project and provides two mitigation measures to reduce noise related effects. NOI-1 which reduces construction noise through construction machinery and truck noise reduction accessories, staging area location, temporary sound barriers, and public noticing. Additionally, the Project would be required to designate a noise control coordinator. If an amplified sound is proposed outdoors, the Applicant must prepare a noise study and must submit an amendment to the proposed conditional use permit. Ultimately, potential traffic and noise concerns will be included in decision maker considerations in project approval deliberations. 368
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 16.3
The commenter notes an issue of no parking, traffic accidents, congestion lasting for hours, haul truck traffic, and trauma from the Woolsey Fire and the failures of City government.
The proposed Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding haul truck trips and public safety. The Project is required to comply with existing County of Los Angeles and City Emergency Response Plans. The City’s 2018 Emergency Operations Plan provides an operational approach to response and recovery from potential hazards. The site is directly accessible to a regional transportation resource, PCH, and no new areas of service would be required for emergency personnel. Additionally, the site is designed for throughput access from PCH to the Malibu Inn parking area, which would improve adequate fire department access with the Project’s driveway modification on the eastern end.
Additionally, as described in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the IS-MND, the Project would not conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Project would improve driveway circulation efficacy at the site and would not significantly impact or alter the operational efficiency of nearby signalized intersections. The Project would result in a limited increase in the number of trips from existing use as a parking lot given the proposed motel use.
The Project anticipates generating approximately 68 ADT, which is well below Caltrans’ threshold of 110 trips per day; therefore, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant to traffic, as further described in Section 4.17, Transportation. Please refer to Section 4.17, Transportation, for additional discussion of transportation related discussion and analysis. Comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 369
From: Matt Goodwin
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: 22959 Pacific Coast Public Comment
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:33:41 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 11.26.39 AM.png
Hello Adrian,
I'm writing in regards to the Staff Report and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for 22959 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA.
Below is an outline of key items I would like to flag. This project will require significant disruption to the existing mountainside, thereby creating earth movement in an earthquake zone, significant construction noise, major PCH shutdowns and traffic throughout construction for utilities and will set precedents that Malibu hasn't seen before like 55ft retaining walls and subterranean parking in beachfront environments.
In addition, the City has indicated in this report that the project does not propose an Environmental Issue, and is suggesting a Negative Mitigated Declaration, as opposed to requiring a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I think there are plenty of environmental issues/risks that\ would trigger an EIR.
Issues
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report and Proposed Adoption that the project satisfies a Negative Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as opposed to requiring a full Environmental Investigation Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale of this project, request for numerous variances and obvious disruption to natural environment disruption and risks and construction hurdles, this should obviously be an EIR requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 you only list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk. However they should also be checking Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape, Air Quality through Construction with that much earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to Subterranean Parking.
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall retaining wall should create a massive amount of heavy duty construction through the use of foundation piles that will create major earth vibration and sound during the course of construction. Approving an enormously large wall and subterranean parking would create a significant impact to the existing landscape and residential well being and create a new precedent for Malibu. I am also concerned for the stability of his hillside as it also relates to our property just two lots to the west. I can imagine during construction that significant vibration from pile driving and foundation / shoring work will create similar vibrations further west and put our hillside at risk. Have they considered vibration monitors so they do not affect the neighbors properties and cause landslides? Additionally, subterranean parking seems like a stretch for such a close proximity to the beachfront.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to the graphic below, you will see how much land is being proposed to be removed from the mountain which is quite enormous and will trigger environmental and stability issues.This project is requesting major variances and should be considered within the more suitable flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a maximum building height can be 24' or 28'
17.6 17.5
17.4 17.3
17.2 17.1
370
with a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is 44'-1" which is significantly taller than the allotted requirement. As a note, we were building a similar elevator to take guests to our roof deck and we would've been at 28'-6" due to the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower than our existing roof line. We were denied and ended up having to build one elevator that goes from the ground to second floor and another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof deck.
Thereby this is another "variance / ask" that seems to be out of place and should be reviewed in equal detail.
It seems also the loss of public parking will only create further parking issues for the Malibu Pier / Surfrider Beach area. Perhaps it could be a nice parking structure? Thank you,
Matthew Goodwin
23033 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
17.7 17.6
Cont
371
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 17
Commenter: Matt Goodwin, Malibu resident
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 17.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. The commenter includes general concerns about potential earth movement at the site in the event of an earthquake, construction noise, PCH shutdowns, and beachfront aesthetics.
The Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods and the Project would be generally visually consistent with surrounding uses.
Please see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, Section 4.13, Noise, Section 4.17, Transportation, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for assessments of each of these concerns. The Geotechnical analysis, as summarized in Section
4.7, Geology and Soils, and detailed further within Appendix B, note that geotechnical recommendations (conditioned within the Project), would be required to mitigate the potential impact of surficial instabilities from impacting the proposed structure, including debris fences installed on the ascending slope above the project site to protect the structure from surface instabilities. Section 4.17, Transportation, 4.20, Wildfire, and 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, note that the Project would not introduce a significant new number of visitors to the area, would not interfere with any adopted evacuation routes, and would not significantly exacerbate existing regional traffic conditions with implementation of the Project. Finally, Section 4.1, Aesthetics, notes that the Project would follow the existing topography, would minimize views of the vast majority of the proposed retaining wall, and would allow for a structure that is generally consistent with the surrounding development along PCH. All analyses found less than significant impacts, and general comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 17.2
The commenter asserts that the IS-MND is insufficient and that an Environmental Impact Report is warranted due to natural environment disruption, risks, and construction hurdles.
The Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods. As noted in IS-MND Section 2, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, subsection 3, an EIR would be required in the case that an IS-MND identifies potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. In the case of the Project, no impacts were identified as potentially significant without mitigation, indicating that all potential impacts would either be less than significant or could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Project-specific mitigation, and all impacts would be maintained lower than those thresholds established by CEQA.
Therefore, with consideration for the conducted IS-MND analysis, an EIR was not determined necessary to address environmental review.
372
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 17.3
The commenter asserts that, in addition to “Noise” and “Geology/Soils” marked as potentially affected in IS-MND Section 3, Environmental Factors Potentially Affected, the resource sections “Aesthetics”, “Air Quality”, “Biological Resources”, “Land Use and Planning”, and “Hydrology/Water Quality” should also be marked as potentially significant.
The Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods. Marked resources in Subsection 3 are reserved for those resource areas that are identified as potentially significant, with or without mitigation. Resource areas identified as less than significant, due to project features, City or State regulation, or other reasons, are not marked within this subsection. As such, it would not be appropriate to mark “Aesthetics”, “Air Quality”, “Biological Resources”, “Land Use and Planning”, or “Hydrology/Water Quality” within this section. It should be noted that the resource areas with identified mitigation measures that were subject to public review (Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources) have been comprehensively addressed throughout the document.
Response 17.4
The commenter raises concern associated with the construction of the Project’s proposed subterranean parking and retaining wall, including earth vibration, earth stability, and requests vibration monitors, and expresses concern for subterranean parking in close proximity to the beachfront.
The Project would be subject to both City and state regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods. As noted in Appendix B, Geotechnical Reports, a series of explorations, studies, and approvals of geotechnical review for the project site are referenced, with the most recent versions attached within the Appendix. The reports for the Project include successive review and final approval from a geotechnical perspective. The Project includes a series of protections for the hillside, including reduced exposed face, stabilization wings, and secondary slope barriers. Please also see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, for additional information on stability, review, and soil analysis. Regarding potential vibration impacts, please see Section 4.13, Noise, Impacts A and B, which note that pile drivers are not proposed for construction, and notes that any use of a pile driver would require City approval and conditioning prior to use, reiterated though NOI-1. Regarding hydrologic impacts onsite that may occur from subterranean features and proximity, please also refer to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, which notes that the Project has undergone extensive geotechnical review to ensure stability, incorporates stabilizing and wing retaining walls for heightened slope stability, and would be required to follow design provisions through the IBC and CBC (as adopted by the City and codified in MMC Section 15.04.010) to employ design standards that consider seismically active areas to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life.
Response 17.5
The commenter raises concerns regarding the Project’s proposed retaining wall, construction on slopes, and associated variances.
373
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The Project would be subject to both City and state regulations regarding public safety, slope stability, and construction methods. As noted in IS-MND Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project requires approval of Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030, 18-031 associated with approvals for retaining walls, height, non-exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cy per lot area acreage, and the location of parking spaces within the front yard setback. Additionally, Appendix B, Geotechnical Reports, a series of explorations, studies, and approvals of geotechnical review for the project site are referenced, with the most recent versions attached within the Appendix. The reports for the Project include successive review and final approval from a geotechnical perspective. The Project includes a series of protections for the hillside, including reduced exposed face, stabilization wings, and secondary slope barriers. Please also see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, for additional information on stability, review, and soil analysis, and consider the geotechnical report findings included in Appendix B, Geotechnical Reports.
Response 17.6
The commenter states that the building height would exceed that of the City’s requirements, specifically that the City allows buildings up to 28 feet with a pitched roof, and that the IS-MND cross section indicates an elevator height of 44 feet and 1 inch.
The Project would be in compliance with the City’s requirements, with approval of SPR No. 18-025. As noted in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project would require approval of SPR No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet and not to exceed 28 feet for a pitched roof. The 44 feet and 1 inch measurement indicated by the commenter includes the subterranean feature. In the City, subterranean features and elevator features are not included in the calculation of total building height under SPR 18-025. As noted in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of discretionary requests in line with City code to be deemed consistent with land use policy. With those approvals, impacts are found to be less than significant. As such, with review and approval of SPR No. 18-025, the Project would be confirmed in compliance with City for the purposes of environmental review. Comments regarding suggestions on heightened Project review will be included within the public record and available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 17.7
The commenter raises a concern about the loss of public parking and associated area issues.
The IS-MND assesses the impacts to parking onsite and for adjacent uses. Please refer to Comment Responses 12.2 and 15.2 for further parking related discussion. 374
To : Adrian Fernandez
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Re: Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
Date: 3-17-21
Malibu Inn Motel Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project Description
The Malibu Inn Motel, proposed to be located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, is for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, grading, retaining walls, landscaping and a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including variances for non-exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards per acre of commercial development, construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, surface parking within the required front yard setback, and retaining walls in excess of six feet in height, a site plan review for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 28 feet for a pitched roof, a conditional use permit for a new commercial development over 500 square feet and a motel in the CV-1 zoning district, and for a Joint Use Parking Agreement to share parking spaces with the adjacent lot.
Benefit to Residents
How does this project benefit the residents of Malibu?
How does this project enhance residents quality of life ? Why were residents not notified and allowed input prior to the preparation of the this Negative Declaration (“ND”)?
Development Criteria Ignored
With so many major variances required, how did this project get to the point of the city proposing a mitigated negative declaration?
Why didn’t the city ask the owner to develop within the code, instead of allowing the developer to ignore the development standards put in place to protect the small town rural feeling of Malibu?
The General Plan states that Commercial Development has to be residential in
18.6 size. Why was this ignored?
18.5 18.4
18.3 18.2
18.1 375
Why isn’t the city insisting its development criteria be met to protect Malibu from urbanization?
Why is city staff justifying this project by stating it is the same height as the oversized county approved clock building when the Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the continuation of this county allowed type of construction ?
FAR
The code allows for commercial development at a maximum FAR of .15.
According to Slow Growth’s calculations the actual FAR is .15.37 If we are correct this exceeds the allowable FAR.
What is the actual FAR of this project? The ND states the slope is greater than 2 ½ to1. What percentage of the slope is 1:1 or steeper? Has the portion of the slope which is 1:1 or greater been deducted when calculating the properties square footage ? If not, how much has to be deducted? And how much smaller does the project have to be to meet the required .15 FAR after the deduction of the 1:1 or great slopes ? Height
The ND states the structure is 28 ft in height. Height is measured from grade and this structure is 46 ft.in height from finished grade to the top of the roof’s elevator shaft. Elevator’s are not excluded when calculating height.
This is in reality a 3 or 4 story structure. There is the 2 story motel and the third story is the actual above ground parking under the motel. The 4th story is the rooftop space containing the pool and the produding 10ft high elevator and a 3 ft. high guard rail .
Although described as subterranean parking, to say the parking structure is subterranean is misleading since only about 4 ft is actually underground. This parking structure is not subterranean since the majority of the parking is above ground level. (See figure 3 ND.)
Was the above ground portion of the parking structure counted in calculating the FAR ?
18.14 18.13 18.12 18.11 18.10 18.9
18.8 18.7
376
The NG states: ‘’The proposed new motel would be similar in size, bulk and scale to existing structures to the east and west ...‘’ This is an inaccurate statement This building is massive in relation to the Malibu Inn which is directly to the west and the Chabad building directly to the east which are both one story and under 18 ft. in height (see rendering )
https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/27710/Malibu-InnMotel_Renderings Why is city staff justifying this project by stating it is the same height bulk and scale as a oversized county approved clock building when the Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the continuation of this non- human scale type of urban construction?
Geology
Why wasn’t the fact that the project is in a tsunami zone analyzed ? The ND states: “As the project site is located within the seismically active Southern California region, there is the potential for regional seismic events to cause strong ground shaking at the project site. There is also a possibility that there could be trace of previously unidentified faults somewhere onsite. The residential structure located north of and above the slopes on and adjacent to the project site has been identified on top of a potentially unstable slope, and excavation of the toe to this slope for the new hotel, subterranean parking and retaining wall have the potential to cause slope failure if exacerbated by rainfall”.
The Geology study confirms this is an unstable bluff. What is to prevent the portion of the bluff above the retaining wall from sliding in a heavy rain or a major earthquake?
Did the owner do anything to determine that there were no faults running through the property ? Is so, what kind of investigation did they do and what did they find ?
The ND states that even following the codes loss of life could occur, and the loss of life and property would have a less than a significant impact. Please explain how can loss of life ever be considered a less than a significant impact
18.20 18.19 18.18 18.17 18.16 18.15
377
Coastal Bluff/Grading
The ND states: ‘’The Project is proposed on a site that was likely on or immediately adjacent to a beach prior to development and was subject to coastal processes (e.g., wave action, beach scour), and has experienced substantial erosion from the northern bluff into the project site (Appendix B).’’This description meets the definition of a Coastal Bluff‘’ Elsewhere in the ND it states ‘’the Project would only alter the lower approximately 50 feet of the slope, while the upper 130 feet remain unaltered.’’ This would be accomplished by cutting into/ excavating a massive amount of the coastal bluff. This excavated soil will have to be exported off site. ’Where does the code allow cutting into a coastal bluff ? If the city denies it is a coastal bluff, where in the code does it allow cutting into a bluff face allowable? What is the length and depth of the cuts into bluff ?
The code allows for 1000 cu yds of grading and the cut and fill should be balanced remain on site and not be exported.
Grading Into the slope is not exempt. The only exempt grading is the approximately 4ft. underground portion of the parking structure. 12,649 cu yds of cut into this bluff is an enormous amount of grading into an admittedly unstable hillside. What is to prevent the hillside from sliding during the grading 50 ft high into slope ?
Is the 11,693 understory grading for the approximately 4 ft of the subterrain parking Lot?
Why was the removal al of the cut dirt off site estimated to be only 600-800 cu. yds when a normal dump truck carries 10 cu.yds. of dirt ? A more realistic calculation is 1,269 truck loads have to hauled off site.
Over how may days will PCH traffic be disrupted as the dirt is being hauled off site?
Why isn’t a traffic management plan required now so the impact of this project
18.27 is known to the decision makers and the public ?
18.26 18.25 18.24 18.23 18.22 18.21
378
Retaining Wall
Under the code retaining walls are to be no higher than 6 feet in height. The proposed retaining wall height is 46 ft above finished grade but in reality is 56.5 ft high measured in its entirety.
What is the length of the retaining wall?
Just because the retaining wall will be camouflaged and hence supposedly looks ok from PCH doesn’t mean such a high deviation of what is allowed under the code should be granted.
What is the visual impact of this retaining wall from the end and middle of the Malibu Pier?
How far will west bound traffic be backed up because of the construction of this project during Saturdays and in the summer?
Cultural Resources
Where did the preparer of the ND get information regarding the lack of the possibility of cultural resources on site dismissing the potential for their existence due to possible past wave action? Recent 20th century evidence proves otherwise.
According to a supporter of Slow Growth when the clock tower building 2 properties to the east was under construction a Chumash burial site was found and excavated. All along this area east of the Malibu Creek at various times Chumash artifacts and burials have been found. It is therefore likely that this site could harbor a Chumash burial ground or in the very least Chumash artifacts.
It appears that this section of the ND was written based on supposition rather than researching the actual situation. We suspect if the research was done there are probably several recorded Chumash sites in the vicinity .
The MLCP gives instruction as to how to the city is to deal with potential Chumash sites both pre construction site and during construction Why isn’t the LUP being ignored instead of being followed ?
Wastewater
18.33 18.32 18.31 18.30 18.29 18.28
379
It appears that the OWTS is being allowed only because there is an expectation that this part of town will be required to hookup to the Civic Center Treatment in phase 3 which is expected to occur in 2028.
Is Phase 3 guaranteed? Can this OWTS perform for the life of the project if phase 3 doesn’t happen? What is the expected life of this system ? How far above the groundwater table is the OWTS ? Is there a chance that groundwater brackish or fresh can enter the system ?
What kind of problems can be caused because the leach field is not large enough to hold the effluent from this project and the Malibu Inn? The ND states:’’The fact the property owner has to record a covenant notifying new owners of the following: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair’’.
The uncertainties of the workability of the OWTS and its leach fields should result in project denial or in the very least require an EIR since the possibility of it not working is significant.
Public Access
The denial/loss of public parking for visitors to the Malibu Pier will be significant and is not mitigable. Why isn’t this loss of parking acknowledged in the ND? What percentage of the motel rooms will be low income accommodations? Parking
18.39 18.38
18.37 18.36
18.35 18.34
380
The joint use parking agreement with the Malibu Inn is not sufficient when the restaurant dining area is full, the outdoor tent is in use and/or they have bands and other entertainment on site. Since this is the case why isn’t the actual required parking being increased ?
What motel personnel will occupy the 3 employee parking spaces? How many employees will be employed by the Malibu Inn and The Aviation Nation shop when the Malibu Inn is at full capacity ? Where will these employees park?
Will the motel and Inn parking be valet parking or self serve? Why isn’t stacked parking being required now as a part of the project? Stacked parking will have to be installed now or installed later since the Malibu Inn is under parked for the amount of cars that will using the site? How will the after the fact installation of stacked disrupt needed project parking and for how long?
In an emergency, stacked parking is not a good idea because of the time needed to get cars out of the lot and on to the driveway how long a delay will there be if the stacked cars and their drivers have to be evacuated? Even if there is no stacked parking in an evacuation situation it will take an enormous amount of time to get all the cars and their occupants off site. A EIR needs to analyze this situation because in an emergency a very dangerous situation is being created.
If there is valet parking and /or stacked parking have these employees been counted in the 3 employee parking space allotment? If not, how many more parking spaces will be needed for these employees?
Will the handicap parking stalls reduce the needed/required parking if they are not being used ?
At one point the ND says only 3 additional parking spaces are needed for employees. Later on it says there will be 20 employees onsite at peak times. If this is the case why aren’t more spaces being provided?
18.46 18.45
18.44 18.43
18.42 18.41
18.40 381
Why does the ND not analyze the impact of loss of needed Malibu Pier parking which is needed on weekends and summer days . This needs to be analyzed in an EIR.
Since it is rare, if not impossible, to find parking along PCH and the pier parking lot is full in the summer and often in winter weekends there certainly will a loss of needed pier/ beach parking. How is the current property’s parking spaces used by residents and visitors alike being replaced?
Traffic
The traffic study doesn’t reflect the reality of the traffic backup and gridlock on this strip of PCH. It talks around it. In actuality, there is a traffic movement problem on a regular basis during rush hour and in the summer and it is significant and not mitigable.
Why are we allowing a minimum 20 more visitor cars going in and out of the motel more than once a day add to the already unmitigable traffic problems? Emergency
PCH is a major evacuation route and the ND states the incremental increase in traffic is not an evacuation problem and the impact is not significant. Obviously, the preparer of the emergency impacts has never been on PCH in an emergency situation or when an ambulance is trying to get to Santa Monica on a summer day when traffic is gridlocked. Even an incremental increase if traffic can be and is significant.
These so called incremental impacts have to be studied along with the incremental impacts of all of the earlier projects mentioned below in the cumulative an EIR.
There is no real analysis in the ND. Statement are simplistically made and expected to be accepted as true. The expectation in the ND is the evacuation will go perfectly without real consideration of an overcrowded after dark smoke filled gridlocked highway, with non functioning traffic lights ,and unpredictable human behavior to name just a few of the many safe evacuation impediments. The worst case situation has to beanalyzed in an EIR.
18.48 18.47
382
The ND naively states that with implementation of the required fuel modification plan on the project site, wind driven wildfire impacts would be less than significant. This statement doesn’t take into account that wildfire embers travel for miles.
Cumulative Impacts
As required by CEQA why doesn’t this ND take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct?
Why aren’t the cumulative impacts of this project being studied in light of all the created traffic congestion and parking impacts from recently approved development which residents are constantly upset about.
The project needs be studied in conjunction with the traffic circulation and off site parking impacts created by the Sea View Hotel , the Malibu Beach Inn, Avis lot parking , Nobu , Soho House , Malibu Pier and Malibu Inn as well as Surfrider beach parking east of the Adamson house and west of the Malibu.
Pier. The traffic and the PCH parking impacts of all of these projects should be factored in when considering the impact of this project. This is a major reason why an EIR is needed.
It is well known to residents that there is not enough parking in the vicinity for the users of these facilities and their employees.
And despite what individual traffic studies state, this area of PCH is highly congested. During rush hour westbound traffic often backed up all the way to Carbon Canyon. On a good day traffic is backed up during rush hour from the Malibu Beach Inn to Cross Creek Rd.
On summer weekends and even during summer weekdays traffic doesn’t move in this area. It is gridlocked. The city’s traffic studies do not reflect reality.
This project as well as the many others in this vicinity have/are being piecemealed through with no thought given to the cumulative traffic , parking and other environmental impacts such as aesthetics , increased groundwater, urbanization of Malibu , safe evacuation and the failure to construct projects
18.51 18.53 18.52
18.50 18.49
383
that meet the development criteria/standards set forth in the Municipal Code and MLCP.
Since the cumulative impacts are not being studied in relation to recently past piecemealed projects and potential future projects, this ND is fatally flawed.
EIR Required
Under CEQA, If there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
The ND failed to indicate any potentially significant impacts but there are some that are significant not mitigable such as traffic. An EIR needs to be done and if the city council desires this project, it would have to make a finding of overriding consideration.
The very fact that this project is a significant departure from the code requirements makes an EIR necessary. In the EIR more environmentally protective alternatives have to be analyzed such as “no project “and a smaller one story commercial project which is residential in scale that doesn’t need all these monumental variances have to be analyzed.
In this instance the parking impacts are significant and they are glossed over in the ND. The current site during the day provided parking for visitors to the pier and the Farm restaurants on the pier. This needed parking is being lost.
Cuts and excavation into the toe and then excessive excavation of the slope 50 foot high to a unknown depth is destabilizing the slope without an enormous
56.6 ft retaining wall.
Furthermore it is questionable if these cuts are allowable since it is cutting into a bluff face and the cuts and retaining wall are of a magnitude that is unimaginable in Malibu.
18.55 18.54 18.57 18.56
18.53 cont.
384
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 18
Commenter: Patt Healy
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 18.1
The commenter correctly describes elements of the proposed Project’s location, square footage, and variances.
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft IS-MND. Comments regarding the specifics of the Project do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 18.2
The commenter asks how the Project benefits Malibu residents and improve quality of life.
The Project would expand overnight accommodation access in the City, which would provide additional TOT revenue to the City to provide services and City improvements to residents as well as benefiting local businesses such as restaurants and retail uses through increased visitation. Additionally, the Project would support resident’s capacity to have overnight accommodation access for visiting family and friends.
Comments regarding the usefulness of the Project to Malibu residents do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND. Nevertheless, comments will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 18.3
The commenter asks why Malibu residents were not notified and allowed to provide input prior to the preparation of the Project’s Negative Declaration.
In compliance with CEQA and adopted City procedures, the public draft IS-MND was provided to the public for the required 30-day comment period, and all public comments received have been responded to.
Under CEQA, MNDs do not provide an opportunity for the public to comment until the public draft review period. CEQA Statute 15375 describes only EIRs shall provide a Notice of Preparation period prior to drafting of the EIR for public comment. Therefore, the Project and IS-MND complied with CEQA requirements for public noticing and comment periods. Additional opportunities to provide comment to decision-makers will occur during public hearings with time to voice opposition to the Project. Further, it should be noted that the Project’s CEQA review is not a Negative Declaration, but rather a MND due to required mitigations to noise, geology and soils, and cultural resources.
Response 18.4
The commenter asks why with major variances required for Project approval the Project has gotten to the stage that the City has prepared a Negative Declaration. 385
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The IS-MND thoroughly addresses all potential impacts associated with required variances. In addition, as stated in Response 18.3, the City actually prepared an IS-MND. As described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, of the IS-MND, the Project would require four variance approvals for grading, slope construction, retaining wall height, and surface parking setback. As described in the IS-MND, extensive technical studies particularly in regards to geology and soil impacts (refer to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils) have been completed for the Project, several of which directly address potential impacts associated with requested variances. The technical studies support the finding of the IS-MND that the Project would not create significant safety hazards associated with slope stability or seismic hazards and that both public safety and the environment would be protected with inclusion of proposed mitigation measures and the City’s standard conditions of approval. Approval of the Project and associated variances will be consider by the City Planning Commission and associated conditions of approval will be imposed to protect the City and environment as determined necessary, Therefore, the City has required preparation of a IS-MND to ensure complete review and analysis of potential project impacts and any required mitigations, including those associated with proposed variances. Nevertheless, comments regarding concern of the required extent of variances that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 18.5
The commenter asks why the City did not ask the owner to develop within the City’s code instead of allowing the developer to ignore development standards in the City to protect the small town rural feeling.
The IS-MND addresses the Project as proposed by the develop as required under the law. The City Planning Commission and City Council retain full discretion to impose additional measures as warranted and to consider whether to approve or reject the requested variances based upon the evidence before them, including the IS-MND. As described in Section 1.1, Project Site and Existing Uses of the IS-MND, the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and all applicable development standards, with the inclusion of requested variances. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with City code related to preservation of the rural character of the City. The Project would require approval of requested variances; however, the City maintains the right to approve or deny variances on a project-by-project basis.
Comments regarding concern of the Project’s consistency with City code that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decisionmakers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 18.6
The commenter asserts the City’s General Plan requires commercial development by residential size and asks why this was ignored.
The City’s 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element does not have a policy or standard requiring commercial development to be of residential size. Please refer to Response 18.5 for discussion of the Project’s compliance with City Code and the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the code for required FAR and height; the proposed motel use is conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zone district.
Comments regarding concern that the Project would not be of residential size and compliant with the City’s General Plan that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 386
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.7
The commenter asks why the City is not insisting the development criteria be met for the Project to protect Malibu from urbanization.
Please refer to Response 18.4.
Response 18.8
The commenter asks why the City is justifying the Project by asserting the Project would be the same height as the oversized County approved clock building when Municipal Code and Local Coastal Plan were enacted to prevent the County from further similar construction.
The IS-MND does not attempt to justify the Project by comparison of the Project’s proposed height or size to the County approved clock building, rather the IS-MND provides a detailed analysis of potential project impacts compared to the existing physical environmental setting. As stated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project would require a height variance for development of the retaining walls in excess of six feet in height (Approval of Variance NO. 18-031). As described in Response 18.3, Project approvals and approvals of variances are required by the City Council prior to adoption of the IS-MND. Comments regarding concern of the height of the proposed Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 18.9
The commenter states the Project’s FAR should be .1537 based on Slow Growth calculations, which exceeds the commercial development maximum of .15 FAR for the City.
Following the MMC, which provides guidance on FAR calculation, FAR on the site is not exceeded. As described in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning-Impact B, “the Project proposes 7,693 sf of commercial floor area on a 51,352 sf (1.18 acre) parcel, the resulting FAR would be 0.15, consistent with the maximum FAR permitted. The Project would require approval of CDP No. 09-067, ensuring adherence to local and regional policies and goals throughout implementation of the Project.” The IS-MND calculated the FAR using the Project’s square footage (7,693 sf) based on a 51,352 sf lot area.
Response 18.10
The commenter asks what is the actual FAR of the Project as the IS-MND states the slope is greater than
2.5 to 1. The commenter additionally asks what percentage of the slope is greater than 1:1.
Based upon the provisions of the MMC, the FAR of the Project is 0.15 as described above. The square footage of the site relies upon the total area of the site parcel (APN 4452-019-005). As shown in Figure 2, the parcel boundary includes the slope; therefore, it must be included in the FAR calculations. The slope grades indicated within Appendix B, Geotechnical Reports, do not indicate any portion of the slope exceeding 1:1, and instead indicate 1:1.5 and 1:2.0 grades within the site. 387
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.11
The commenter asks if the portion of the slope that is 1:1 or greater has been deduced when calculating the properties square footage. If not, the commenter asks what percentage has been deduced and how much smaller the Project would need to be to meet the required 0.15 FAR after a deduction of the 1:1 or greater slopes.
The IS-MND nor Appendices indicate any portion of the slope exceeds a 1:1 slope. Additionally, as described in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Project is only required to apply for a variance for development of slopes at or greater than 2.5:1. The Project does not consider what portion of the slope is 1:1 or greater nor is that sum reduced when calculating the FAR as no required City or state policy recommends or requires such action for commercial development. Therefore, the Project is in compliance with City FAR standards for commercial development and does not require reduction of the Project footprint to meet 0.15 FAR.
Response 18.12
The commenter states that the proposed Project structure of 28 feet in height is incorrect, as the commenter asserts the height measured from grade to the roof’s elevator shaft is 46 feet, and that elevators should not be excluded when calculating a structure’s height. The commenter also asserts the Project is a 3 to 4 story structure not 2 stories.
Regarding building height calculations within the City, the standards limit the structure from finished grade, and the proposed structure is in compliance with measurements of the building height from finished grade, of which the calculations do not include subterranean features. The 36- and 44-foot heights previously indicated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, more accurately refer to the height of the structure above the structure’s ground floor elevation, while the structure is actually built into the slope and does not exceed 28 feet above finished or natural grade at any location. This number clarification has been included within Section 1.3, Project Description, and appropriately characterized in Figure 3. The remaining 34 percent of the project site closest to the top of the slope would be maintained as undeveloped open space.
Response 18.13
The commenter states the IS-MND’s description of parking as subterranean is inaccurate as only approximately 4 feet of the structure would be underground. Also, the commenter feels the parking structure is not subterranean since the majority of the parking is above ground level.
The commenter identifies approximately 4 feet of the subterranean parking garage would be below grade, however no portion of subterranean garage daylights more than 3 feet from finished grade, except for a vehicle opening and building required emergency egress. The IS-MND correctly identifies the 29 subterranean parking spaces as subterranean, and underground access via a driveway would be required.
The Project would additionally provide 18 at grade surface parking spaces as shown in Table 1 of the ISMND. Nevertheless, comments regarding assertion that the subterranean parking should be described as at grade that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 388
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.14
The commenter asks if the above ground portion of the Project’s parking structure was included in calculating the FAR.
All necessary components of FAR are included within the document and calculated per City requirements.
As noted in Note 1 of Table 1, the occupied space of the motel is the only feature that is to be included in calculations of the structure’s FAR. Occupied Space, or the gross floor area, comprises the structure’s Total Floor Area, which includes the square footage that is used to calculate estimated water use, sewer rates, trip generation, FAR, and associated considerations. Considering the site’s 7,693 sf of occupied space, and the lot area of 51,352 sf (1.18 acres), the total FAR is approximately 14.98 percent, which is lower than the 0.15 FAR lot limit. Please refer to Section 1.3, Project Description, for more detail on the site’s calculations.
Response 18.15
The commenter states the MND’s assertion that “the proposed new motel would be similar in size, bulk and scale to existing structures to the east and west” is inaccurate given the Project’s structure is massive compared to the Malibu Inn and Chabad building which are both under 18 feet in height.
While the Malibu Inn and Chabad building, which lie immediately adjacent to the site are single story, to the west and east, as stated in the IS-MND are multiple two-story or greater structures with similar size, bulk and scale, including the much larger Malibu Plaza within 185 feet of the eastern project boundary and the Surfrider Inn approximately 300 feet from the western boundary. Multiple other large structure also lie along both sides of PCH east of the project site.
Response 18.16
The commenter asks why the City is justifying this project by stating it is the same height, bulk, and scale, as the County approved clock building.
Please refer to Response 18.8.
Response 18.17
The commenter asks why the Project’s location in a tsunami zone was not analyzed.
The IS-MND does address potential Tsunami hazards. As stated in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the California Department of Conservation Tsunami Inundation Maps for southern California indicate the project site would be outside any potential tsunami inundation area. However, the project site is within 200 feet of the upper limit of the potential inundation area, located on the opposite (southern) edge of PCH. Given the Project is outside of mapped tsunami inundation zones for southern California, the IS-MND describes impacts as less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Response 18.18
The commenter states the IS-MND describes the Project is located within seismically active southern California and has potential for impacts from regional seismic events, and the residential structures on the north of and above the slopes are on potentially unstable soil, and raises the concern that Project 389
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
excavation activities could cause slope failure. The commenter requests clarification on if the bluff is unstable what would prevent the bluff above the retaining wall from sliding in a heavy rain event or major earthquake.
The IS-MND includes adequate assessment of potential geologic impacts and consideration for the project’s geotechnical review, and refers to additional detail that can be found within Appendix B. In Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the IS-MND notes that the Project would be located in the seismically active southern California region. Please see Comment Response 18.4 for additional discussion on the geotechnical reports. Design requirements include the freeboard on the rear yard retaining wall will be designed to provide code-require setbacks from ascending slopes. The freeboard would be designed as an impact wall with a minimum equivalent fluid pressure of 125 pcf, based on the geotechnical recommendations by the Consultant. Therefore, the Project’s retaining wall design would adequately protect life and property from unstable slopes during an earthquake and/or rainfall event.
Response 18.19
The commenter asks if the property owner worked to determine if there were faults underlying the property and if so what kind of investigation was done and the following results.
The Proposed Project has been subject to extensive geotechnical analysis, including the potential for damage from seismic events. As described in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the project site is located between two mapped splays of the Malibu Coast Fault Zone. However, the project site is not located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor was there positive evidence of active faulting during geologic mapping and subsurface explorations conducted at the project site as part of the site-specific Geotechnical Report (Appendix B). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture during a seismic event is considered remote and less than significant. No further evaluation of fault locations is required by CEQA, and the Project would comply with IBC and CBC to employ design standards that consider seismically active areas to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life.
Response 18.20
The commenter states the IS-MND identifies that, even with full compliance to City code, the loss of life and property could occur. The commenter requests that the IS-MND explain how a loss of life can be described as less than significant, or how an IS-MND can conclude less than significant impacts when stating a potential for loss of life.
The IS-MND thoroughly analyzes potential impacts associated with geology and soils and other hazards which are described in great detail. As discussed in the IS-MND, the Project will not exacerbate the risk of an earthquake or liquefaction. Loss of life is always a crucial element to consider under CEQA; however, the IS-MND found the Project would not exacerbate the risk to the public in the event of an earthquake in southern California. The Project cannot alter existing conditions of earthquake risk to the southern California region, which are addressed in the CBC, as well as City policy. Please refer to Response 18.19 for discussion of the Project’s building code compliance for earthquake events.
Response 18.21
The commenter states the IS-MND identifies the site as located on a “coastal bluff” and states the Project would only alter the lower approximately 50 feet of the slope with the remaining upper 130 feet unaltered. 390
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The commenter asks where the City code allows cutting into a coastal bluff, and if the City denies the site is a coastal bluff, where does the code allow cutting into a general bluff face.
The IS-MND notes the Project’s location at the base of a slope, and assesses all relevant City policies regarding slope development. The City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan item 3.50 requires “cut and fill slopes and other areas disturbed by construction activities (including areas disturbed by fuel modification or brush clearance) shall be landscaped or revegetated at the completion of grading.” As stated in the IS-MND, Project Description, the cut and fill slopes will be stabilized with landscaping. Further the Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan line item 6.9. h requires all new development to be sited and designed to minimize height and length of cut and fill slopes; however, such activities remain allowed with City approval. Therefore, as noted within the IS-MND, through adherence to City code, geotechnical specifications, and approval of project variances, the Project is consistent with all existing City policy related to cut and fill on slopes.
Response 18.22
The commenter asks what length and depth the coastal bluff cuts would be for the proposed Project.
The IS-MND and supporting geotechnical reports thoroughly describe changes to the base of the slope as well as any potential hazards. The 13,043 cubic yards of excavation would be conducted within the approximate 160 foot length and 50 foot height, with variations in height or length to accommodate geologic stability and re-added fill and soil, calculated within Appendix B and summarized within the ISMND.
Response 18.23
The commenter states the City’s code allows for 1,000 cy of grading, and cut and fill should be remain onsite with no offsite transport. The commenter further asserts grading in a slope is not an exempt activity, and 12,649 cy of cut into a bluff is an enormous among of grading on an unstable hillside. The commenter asks what would prevent the hillside from sliding during grading.
The IS-MND thoroughly addresses grading and impacts associated with alternation of the slope and acknowledges the Project’s exceedance of the City Code, as further detailed in Comment Response B.10 and noted in IS-MND Section 1.4, Project Approvals. The City’s Code does not require all cut and fill to remain onsite for construction projects. As described in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils-City Standard Conditions of Approval, the Project would comply with City Standard Conditions of Approval including:
Grading should be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 through October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 through March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities. Additionally, all recommendations of consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or City geotechnical staff related to grading will be incorporated into the final design. Please also refer to Comment Response 18.4 for further discussion of variances. The IS-MND does not state grading on a slope is an exempt activity, and as stated above would comply with all required approvals and design methods. Therefore, the Project would not exacerbate hillside stability during grading. 391
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.24
The commenter asks if the 11,693 cy of understory grading is for the four feet of subterranean parking.
The IS-MND thoroughly describes Project grading and any resultant potential impacts. Due to the structure’s location on a hillside, understructure grading includes the total slope area beneath that required for the structure, and so it does include the subterranean parking. The IS-MND notes that the 11,639 cy of total grading is considered understructure grading, which is a Local Implementation Planexempt category from the total allowable.
Response 18.25
The commenter inquires on the estimated total number of haul trucks that would be used to haul dirt off site, noting a normal dump truck carries 10 cy of dirt.
The IS-MND thoroughly describes project grading and associated truck traffic. Please refer to Comment Response B.10 for additional information on this topic.
Response 18.26
The commenter inquires on the number of days PCH traffic would be disrupted during excavation haul activities.
The IS-MND thoroughly describes Project grading and associated truck traffic. Haul truck activity associated with site grading would require approximately 108 days (Appendix A). Based upon the detailed analysis within the IS-MND, this number of trips would be far below that which may cause transportation impacts. While not every day would include haul truck activity, assuming the highest estimated number of truck trips required (875 haul trucks), over this period, this would result in an average of 8.1 haul truck trips per day, which would not result in substantial traffic impacts considering avoiding generating vehicle trips during rush hour traffic (see Section 4.17, Impact C) and adhering to California Vehicle Code and City Standard Conditions of Approval.
Response 18.27
The commenter inquires why a traffic management plan is not required.
Approval of Caltrans’ Stage Construction, Traffic Handling, and Detour Construction plans are required, including encroachment permits for the work that requires hauling on Caltrans right-of-way, such as along PCH. These requirements are noted within Section 1.4, Project Approvals, and the discussion within Section 4.17, Transportation, Impact C of the IS-MND. Additional traffic management plans are not required under CEQA, however the comment will be included within decision-maker consideration.
Response 18.28
The commenter asks for the length of the retaining wall.
The IS-MND describes that the length of the retaining wall would be approximately 160 feet, as measured within Appendix B, Geotechnical Report. As noted within the plans, added stability would be provided via an approximate 25 feet of stabilization wing wall extending west of the primary retaining wall, and an 392
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
approximate 205 foot long, 4-foot-high debris wall included above the retaining wall to further protect the reach of development.
Response 18.29
The commenter asserts the retaining wall height deviation should not be granted, despite camouflage and apparent reduced visibility from PCH.
The City retains full discretion to approve or deny any requested variances. Approval of Variance No. 18- 031 would allow for wall height to be granted in excess of six feet in height, as noted within Section 1.4, Project Approvals. Comments regarding aspects of the project that do not specifically relate to CEQA review will be included in decision maker deliberations.
Response 18.30
The commenter inquires on the visual impact of the retaining wall from various locations on the Malibu Pier.
The IS-MND assesses visual impacts from Malibu Pier and a variety of surrounding public viewing areas, including the beach, PCH, and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed new motel and associated retaining wall would be similar in size, bulk, and scale to existing structures to the east and west, in addition to noting that it would be designed to step back into the hillside. Additionally, it is noted that the project would not include alterations to Malibu Pier, as the existing surface parking lot is not identified as contributing to the historic setting of the pier. Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Impact A-B discussion for further assessment information.
Response 18.31
The commenter inquires how far west bound traffic will be backed up because of construction during Saturdays and in the summer.
The IS-MND thoroughly describes potential impacts associated with haul truck traffic associated with the Project, including possible disruption of traffic flows along PCH. Specific distances of potential traffic backups cannot be determined, and would be speculative under the scope of a CEQA assessment. Traffic volumes, intersection operation, and approval requirements are all assessed within the IS-MND, specifically within Section 4.17, Transportation. Though not specifically necessary under CEQA, intersections in the area are all operating at LOS A or B, indicating acceptable traffic flow. It is noted within Section 4.17, Transportation, Impact C discussion that construction would not add a significant number of trips to the project site, review and approval of an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans would be required, and the absence of significant curves would provide a safe means of transportation access.
Response 18.32
The commenter asks what source of information the IS-MND used to establish that the site would not support substantial cultural resources and dismissing the potential for cultural resources due to possible past wave action.
The IS-MND thoroughly describes potential impacts to cultural resources and provides the information source at the end of the sentence noted by the commenter, cited as Appendix B, which is the document’s 393
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Geological Reports. Appendix B includes existing setting information, including the underlying coastal sediment, overall slope erosion, and other underlying geology. It should be noted that wave action was provided as an example of what “coastal processes” could include, based on the underlying sediment, and was not specifically stated as the reason for potential lack of cultural resources. In support of the potential for cultural resources, the IS-MND discloses that the project site is located within a region that has a history of habitation by the Chumash and Tongva tribal populations, and that there is the potential for unanticipated encounters with tribal cultural resources. Consultation with local tribes was held to solicit additional information, which is further considered within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section
4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Accordingly, the IS-MND includes three mitigation measures (MM TCR-1, -2, and -3) beyond the City’s standard existing conditions of approval.
Response 18.33
The commenter states that a supporter of Slow Growth asserts a Chumash burial site was found and excavated at a nearby site, and that additional artifacts and burials have been found within the area east of Malibu Creek at various times. The commenter includes a question on the extent of research conducted in preparation of the IS-MND.
The IS-MND includes a review of the site’s existing setting in compliance with CEQA, including cultural resources. Despite multiple meetings with local tribe representatives, the sites indicated by the commenter could not be corroborated and are not listed in either City or State resources. Following additional due-diligence review, no archaeological reports have been presented for properties immediately adjacent to the subject property, and those further away in the general vicinity did not require higher than a Phase 1 review, further indicating a lack of significant findings. See Response 18.32 for a summary of the research conducted to establish the CEQA baseline, and please note the City conditions of approval, which stem from the City’s Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan, and three mitigation measures (MM TCR-1, -2, and -3) required of the project to avoid potentially significant impacts to cultural resources with implementation of the project.
Response 18.34
The commenter raises a concern that the proposed onsite water treatment system (OWTS) will be able to perform for the life of the project, considering that a hookup to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility may occur within the next 8 years.
The proposed OWTS is designed to last for the life of the Project and far beyond the potential window to connection to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility, due to meeting the requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution No. R4-2009-007, and the LCP. The IS-MND notes that the proposed OWTS may need to be abandoned shortly, considering the potential for future connection to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility within ten years.
Please see IS-MND Section C, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System, Section 1.4, Project Approvals, Section
4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, for extensive discussion on the required approvals and analysis regarding the efficacy of the proposed OWTS.
Response 18.35
The commenter raises a concern about the proximity of the groundwater table and associated potential for brackish or fresh water to enter the system.
394
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The area’s groundwater table would not affect the proposed OWTS. The project site and associated septic infrastructure would be located at approximately 20 feet above sea level, above the underlying coastal groundwater table and any potential influence of brackish or fresh water. Please see IS-MND Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, for further discussion on the required approvals and analysis regarding the efficacy of the proposed OWTS.
Response 18.36
The commenter raises concerns about what may happen from an inadequately designed septic system.
The IS-MND thoroughly address potential impacts of the proposed OWTS including those to groundwater.
The Project proposes an adequate septic system (Appendix B), and will not result in potentially significant impacts to water quality or utilities, as noted within Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The IS-MND notes potential impacts of an inadequately designed leach field within Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, including potential groundwater or ocean water pollution impacts. However, the IS-MND also notes these impacts would be avoided due to the multi-phase treatment implemented by the system and associated permitting requirements, which includes detailed calculations and requirements that – among other considerations – the septic system be large enough to accommodate the proposed project.
Response 18.37
The commenter raises a concern with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval regarding private sewage disposal system covenant notification requirements to new owners, and states that this requirement should necessitate an EIR for this project’s use of an OWTS.
The City’s standards for the OWTS have been subject to extensive regulatory agency review and reflect measures needed to protect groundwater quality. The City’s covenant notification requirement for private sewage disposal systems is not a project-specific requirement, and does not effect the proposed efficacy of the system. Please see Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, for discussion of the extensive City requirements necessary of the proposed OWTS. Comments regarding topics outside the scope of CEQA review, such as those regarding the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, will be included in decision-maker deliberations.
Response 18.38
The commenter argues the loss of public parking for visitors to the Malibu Pier will be significant and unmitigable, and states this is not acknowledged in the IS-MND.
The IS-MND thorough discusses potential impacts associated with the loss of coastal access parking. As discussed in the IS-MND, the project’s development of a paid private parking lot would provide adequate and required parking, and would not result in the loss of existing public parking. The project site is currently operated as a private parking lot where the public is allowed to park for a fee, and the project would include a total of 24 parking spaces for Malibu Inn under a JUPA, as required. Malibu Inn’s parking is currently addressed at the site through a JUPA, as described in the IS-MND. Further, the Project complies with MMC requirements for parking as described in Section 1.3, Project Description of the IS-MND. The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 2, Proposed Parking Program. Per MMC requirements and the JUPA, one parking space is required for every 50 sf of the restaurant’s service area 395
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
that currently exists at the adjacent Malibu Inn property, and one parking space as required for every 225 sf of retail or office floor area. This totals 24 spaces that are required from the adjacent Malibu Inn property. Additionally, per MMC Section 17.48.030 – Specific Parking Requirements – one parking space for each lodging unit (keyed room) is required, totaling 20 spaces, in addition to one space for the average, per-shift number of employees. As a result, the Project is required to provide a minimum of 47 parking spaces to be consistent with MMC requirements. Additionally, stacked parking within the subterranean garage – if implemented – would provide additional overflow parking spaces as necessary for the property.
Response 18.39
The commenter inquires what percentage of motel rooms would be low-income accommodations.
The IS-MND did not identify potential significant impacts to land use or zoning consistency. The proposed Project is not required to supply low-income accommodations. Please refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.14, Population and Housing, for further discussion on land use consistency and low-income population considerations.
Response 18.40
The commenter raises a concern of the existing JUPA and total required parking spaces, noting the restaurant use and outdoor tent use. Additionally, the commenter inquires which motel personnel will occupy the employee parking spaces and the number of employees between the Malibu Inn and Aviation Nation shop.
With approval of JUPA No. 18-001, the Project is in compliance with the proposed JUPA and associated parking requirements. Under the project’s JUPA, the land use of the adjacent Malibu Inn is being updated to entirely retail with no restaurant, which reduces the total parking requirements, and reduces the potential for bands, outdoor tents, or other entertainment onsite. Additionally, the parking spaces allocated to motel employees will include those associated with cleaning, receptionist, and other hospitality-related roles. Please see Section 1.4, Project Approvals, and associated analysis within Section
4.17, Transportation, for further discussion.
Response 18.41
The commenter questions whether the motel and inn parking will be valet parking or self-serve.
Valet capabilities would be subject to the property operator and would be a service that could be provided by the motel operator, though the difference between valet parking versus self-serve would not affect CEQA conclusions as contained within the IS-MND. For further information on valet capabilities, please note descriptions and discussion contained within Section I, Construction and Staging, and within Section
4.17, Transportation.
Response 18.42
The commenter asserts stacked parking is required under the project, and raises concerns about installing stacked parking at a later date, which could affect future parking disruptions. 396
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Stacked parking is not required to fulfill parking requirements. Descriptions of stacked parking and its potential inclusion in the project is noted within Table 1, Proposed Development Plan, which notes “Proposed stacked parking may be utilized to provide additional parking above MMC requirements”, Section A, Project Design, and Section B, Access and Parking, which states, “Stacked parking space numbers have not been enumerated but would be additive to the minimum surface parking requirements of the MMC”. Please see Comment Response 18.40 for additional information on the site’s requirements in relation to the proposed JUPA. Additionally, the project description does not assume stacked parking would be added at a later date, and delayed construction is not assumed as part of this Project. As such, future parking disruptions are not anticipated.
Response 18.43
The commenter asserts stacked parking will result in evacuation delays, and that the subterranean parking as proposed is a safety hazard due to occupants retrieving their cars in the event of an emergency.
The commenter requests an EIR to further assess the danger.
The proposed subterranean garage does not exacerbate existing hazards during an emergency nor disrupt emergency vehicle access. As further discussed within Section 4.15, Public Services, the project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Code (Title 32) regarding access requirements for the proposed project and design standards for fire prevention and access, including consideration for emergency plans and evacuation routes. As discussed within Section 4.20, Wildfire, the project is designed with throughput access from PCH to the Malibu Inn parking lot, allowing for adequate fire department access via the improved driveway access radius, and that the Project would not impair adopted emergency evacuation plans. As stated in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) will need to approve the final project plans for safety and access. During LACFD review, firespecific and evacuation-specific parameters will be assessed, which may eliminate the proposed parking, or increase underground parking ventilation, or other site-specific adjustments. No CEQA-specific hazards regarding underground parking were identified during review.
Response 18.44
The commenter implies inadequate parking would be available in the case that potential valet parking or stacked parking is implemented, particularly associated with employee parking.
Please refer to Comment Response 18.40, 18.41, and 18.42 for information on these topics.
Response 18.45
The commenter raises a concern that handicap parking stalls may affect the total number of needed or required parking spaces.
The Project provides the necessary number of handicap parking stalls. The number of handicap parking stall required is derived from the requirements of MMC Section 17.48.030, Specific Parking Requirements.
Please refer to Section B, Access and Parking, for additional information on the project’s required parking.
Response 18.46
The commenter requests clarification on the number of parking spaces required for employees. 397
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
The average number of employees per shift would be 3 employees onsite. The associated number has been updated throughout the document to reflect this value.
Response 18.47
The commenter raises concern with the loss of parking on weekend and summer days for pier and beach parking, and requests an EIR to further assess this topic.
Please refer to Comment Response 18.38 and 18.40 for information on this topic.
Response 18.48
The commenter states there is traffic on this strip of PCH, with traffic movement problems during rush hour and during the summer. The commenter raises a concern that additional visitors to the project site would exacerbate this problem, and that it may affect evacuation routes and emergency response times.
The commenter requests an EIR to further assess this topic.
The project would not add a significant number of vehicle miles traveled to the project site and vicinity, as detailed within Section 4.17, Transportation. The site currently holds a parking lot, which supports a limited number of trips to the site under existing conditions. It is disclosed that the Project would increase VMT compared to this existing setting. Under CEQA, due to the project’s location on the State Highway System, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is used for impact analysis purposes, overseen by Caltrans. As a project with a motel land use, it is anticipated to generate approximately 68 average daily trips (ADT), which is well below the threshold of 110 trips per day set by Caltrans that would signify a significant impact. Traffic conditions were noted that may affect evacuation routes and response times, though the Project would not specifically conflict with an adopted evacuation plan or route. Additionally, as the increase in trips are not considered significant, the overall traffic conditions would not be significantly impacted from implementation of the Project or on a cumulatively considerable basis. Please refer to Section 4.17 for additional analysis associated with safety and traffic flow that acknowledges local traffic throughput and potential impacts, of which were found less than significant.
Response 18.49
The commenter asserts wildfire impacts are inadequately assessed by the MND, stating that the fuel modification plan is insufficient and that the wind-driven effect of embers from wildfires were not taken into account.
The IS-MND includes sufficient assessment of wildfire impacts, included within Section 4.20, Wildfire, Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.15, Public Services. The vegetation, or lack thereof, surrounding the project site is described, specifically in its relation to the potential for wildfire effects. The historic Woolsey Fire and the effects of wind are included within the document, including consideration for the Santa Ana winds, noting that these effects can contribute to the spread of wildfire.
Prevailing wind directions are assessed, and the site’s location within a Very High fire hazard safety zone are considered. Compared to the existing setting, the Project would not exacerbate the existing potential hazards from wildfire, particularly following LACFD approval. Finally, the site is within the service area of the nearest fire station and would not necessitate an expansion of fire-related public services to the site. 398
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.50
The commenter asserts cumulative impacts are not adequately addressed by the MND, particularly regarding traffic congestion and regional development.
The IS-MND addresses cumulative impacts in numerous sections of the document, in compliance with CEQA and best planning practices. To summarize, cumulatively considerable air quality pollutants are addressed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, including those criteria included within SCAQMD’s CEQA guidance. Water quality impacts from the project site and surrounding development is cumulatively considered within Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, notably for the potential for surface water quality pollution from other parking lot and building drainage. Surrounding development and cumulative conditions are considered within 4.17, Transportation, addressing street flow and congestion. Utilities and wastewater facility potential impacts are addressed within Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, and fire service capability to accommodate regional development is considered within Section 4.20, Wildfire. Additional sections also consider the CEQA required existing setting, including consideration for surrounding development and projects, culminating in the review within Section 4.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, which summarizes and concludes potential impacts of the project on a cumulatively considerable basis, including those to noise, traffic, cultural resources, wildlife species, and more. Please also see Comment Responses 18.31 and 18.48.
Response 18.51
The commenter asserts there is insufficient parking for the project site.
Please refer to Comment Responses 18.38 through 18.42 for responses to this topic.
Response 18.52
The commenter raises a concern of traffic, rush hour traffic, backed up intersections, and gridlocked traffic.
Please refer to Comment Responses 18.31, 18.48, and 18.50 for responses to this topic.
Response 18.53
The commenter asserts cumulative impacts are not adequately addressed by the MND, and are being piecemealed through.
Please refer to Comment Response 18.50 for cumulative impact response information. Regarding piecemealing, the scope of the IS-MND includes this Project and consideration for cumulative impacts in the region, following best available information in compliance with CEQA. The IS-MND contains input from successive rounds of technical review, consideration for the Project at a regional scale, includes consultation periods, and public input, and does not directly connect to another project that may suggest piecemeal adoption. Comments that do not directly pertain to the analysis will be included in decision maker deliberations.
399
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 18.54
The commenter asserts an EIR is required due to substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, particularly those associated with traffic.
The IS-MND did not identify any potentially significant impacts that would not be reduced to a less than significant level through the use of proposed mitigation. Traffic impacts were found as less than significant following accepted VMT thresholds and consideration for local policy such as an analysis of LOS. If the Project had exceeded these thresholds, an EIR would be required, however none were triggered. Please see Comment Responses 18.31, 18.48, and 18.50 for responses to this topic in addition to the analysis contained within the MND, particularly Section 4.17, Transportation.
Response 18.55
The commenter asserts the number of variances indicate an EIR is required to ensure consistency.
There is no threshold for the number of variances associated with a Project required to trigger an EIR. As noted in Section 1.4, Project Approvals, and throughout the MND, approval of each variance would be required to ensure project consistency. With variance approvals, certain land use and resource-specific impacts would be avoided, particularly those related to aesthetic or geologic review. Variance approval requires extensive review and, in the case of this project, extensive geotechnical review for safety and geologic stability, which has been conducted over the past years. As no potentially significant impacts were identified, with approval of the MND, an EIR would not be required under CEQA.
Response 18.56
The commenter asserts parking impacts are glossed over in the ND.
The IS-MND adequately addresses parking. Please see Comment Responses 18.38 through 18.42 for associated responses on this topic.
Response 18.57
The commenter raises a concern that the amount of excavation would result in destabilization and the location of potential cuts are questionable.
The Project would not result in slope destabilization. Extensive review has been conducted from a geotechnical perspective. Please see Comment Responses 18.18, 18.19, 18.21, and 18.23 for additional discussion on these topics, in addition to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, and Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the MND, and Appendix B for further information and review from the geotechnical reports.
400
From: Suzannah Owens
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Project Comment
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:52:19 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am emailing regarding the current Malibu Inn project. The city is in dire need of more hotel rooms and I believe this will be a great improvement to the empty parking lot that is currently there.
I think this project will be a great asset to the city and I look forward to referring family members from out of town.
Best,
Suzannah
19.1 401
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 19
Commenter: Suzanne Owens
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 19.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment notes support for the Project’s component of additional hotel rooms in the City and conversion of the parking lot to the Project’s proposed use. Comments regarding support for the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
402
From: Judy Ettinger
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel, 22959 PCH., Malibu
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:22:35 PM
Dear Adrian:
After reading about the new proposed hotel for Malibu, called The Malibu Inn Motel, I would like to bring up the point that a 20 room motel would be a great fit for Malibu, since it would be considered more of a boutique hotel. I really liked the design, with the use of the exterior wood, it looks like it would blend nicely into the current landscaping.
I do agree that we need a new hotel and new growth in Malibu, it has been long over due. I have a lot of relatives that come from out of town that would really enjoy a pool with a restaurant, especially in that location with the view of Malibu and the Ocean. I look forward to having a new hotel for my friends and family to come visit Southern California.
20.1 403
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 20
Commenter: Judy Ettinger, Malibu resident
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 20.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment notes support for the Project’s addition of 20 rooms to the City, and notes the design with exterior wood will blend well with the existing landscaping. Comments regarding support for the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
404
From: Mark Dempster
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Kim Dempster
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:07:58 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 11.26.39 AM.png
MalibuInnMotel_PublicDraft_202102171547271450.pdf
Hello Ms. Fernandez,
We are residential owners at 23006 Pacific Coast
Highway (across the street, approximately in between
Jack-in-the-Box and Aviator Nation and directly next
door to the Malibu Pier).
Let me start by saying that a new hotel would be a net
positive to Malibu generally and this neighborhood
specifically. However, as proposed, we are
diametrically opposed to any aspect of this project. In fact, we oppose a project that's even half this scale
and impact. What we do support is a project that is not a square inch larger than the Surfrider Hotel and one
that follows every single letter of the code without a
single variance, just as the Surfrider abided by with
their renovation.
Our view is that the owner and the architect of 22959
PCH actually don't want this project, as proposed. We
believe they are doing nothing more than playing a
game with the City of Malibu. That game is to submit a
set of basic drawings that reflects a maximum
footprint, per the square footage of the lot, and ask for every variance under the sun to make that proposal
achievable from an engineering and construction
standpoint. But, our suspicion is that the owner and
the architect know full well that there's zero chance of approval of this proposal, are expecting to get pushed
back to a more achievable and desirable project, but
one that still got a number of variances granted by the city.
The owner and architect could have followed a more
neighborly and measured process in drafting their first proposal. But, for their conscious game playing, we ask that the city put this project through the gauntlet of
following proper protocol.
Specifically, we ask that the city not grant this project
21.2 21.1
405
the requested variances:
1. Non-Exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards per acre of commercial
development (asking to export 12,255 cubic
yards as reference)
2. Construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1
3. Surface parking beyond the required front yard
setback
4. Retaining walls in excess of six feet in height
(asking for a 52.5ft all wall above the
subterranean parking garage as reference)
Furthermore, we ask the city insist that this project not deviate from the following:
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report
and Proposed Adoption that the project
satisfies a Negative
Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as opposed to
requiring a full Environmental Investigation
Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale of this
project, request for numerous variances and
obvious disruption to natural environment
disruption and risks and construction hurdles,
this should obviously. Refer to Pg3 to get an
understanding on the EIR requirement vs NMD
requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 they only
list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk.
However they should also be checking
Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape,
Air Quality through Construction with that much
earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use
Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to
Subterranean Parking
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The
creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall
retaining wall should create a massive amount
of heavy duty construction through the use of
foundation piles that will create major earth
vibration and sound during the course of
construction. Approving an enormously large
wall and subterranean parking would create a
significant impact to the existing landscape and
residential well being and creating a new
precedent for Malibu.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non
21.6 21.5
21.4 21.3
21.2 406
Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to
the graphic below, you will see how much land
is being proposed to be removed from the
mountain which is quite enormous and will
trigger environmental and stability issues.This
project is requesting major variances and
should be considered within the more suitable
flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a
maximum building height can be 24' or 28' with
a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the
height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is
44'-1" which is significantly taller than the
allotted requirement. As a note, we were
building a similar elevator to take guests to our
roof deck and wee would've been at 29' due to
the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower
than our existing roof line. Wee were denied
and ended up having to build one elevator that
goes from the ground to second floor and
another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof
deck. Thereby this is another "variance / ask"
that seems to be out of place and should be
scrutinized.
My contact information is below should you have the
need for any follow-up.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark & Kim Dempster
Mark Dempster
415.999.1353
[email protected]
21.7 21.6
Cont.
407
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 21
Commenter: Mark and Kim Dempster, Malibu Property Owner Date: March 17, 2021
Response 21.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment notes support for the Project’s addition of a new hotel to Malibu generally and this neighborhood specifically. Comments regarding support for the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 21.2
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The commenter includes opposition to all aspects of the Project that require approval of a City variance. The comment includes requests of the City to not grant the project the variances for non-exempt grading, construction on steeper slopes, surface parking within the required front yard setback, and retaining walls in excess of six feet in height.
The Project includes requests for approval of associated variances, and overall Project approval is contingent on stated variance approval. Please see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, Section 4.13, Noise, Section 4.17, Transportation, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for assessments of the concerns raised. All analyses found less than significant impacts, and general comments regarding opposition to the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
Response 21.3
The commenter asserts that the IS-MND is insufficient and that an Environmental Impact Report is warranted due to natural environment disruption, risks, and construction hurdles.
The IS-MND addresses natural environment disruption, risks, and construction hurdles; please see Comment Response 17.2 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 21.4
The commenter asserts that, in addition to “Noise” and “Geology/Soils” marked as potentially affected in IS-MND Section 3, Environmental Factors Potentially Affected, the resource sections “Aesthetics”, “Air Quality”, “Biological Resources”, “Land Use and Planning”, and “Hydrology/Water Quality” should also be marked as potentially significant.
The IS-MND addresses potentially significant impacts; please see Comment Response 17.3 for further discussion on this topic.
408
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Response 21.5
The commenter raises concern associated with the construction of the Project’s proposed subterranean parking and retaining wall, including earth vibration, earth stability, and requests vibration monitors, and expresses concern for subterranean parking in close proximity to the beachfront.
The IS-MND addresses Project construction of the retaining wall, earth vibrations, and subterranean features; please refer to Comment Response 17.4 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 21.6
The commenter raises concerns regarding the Project’s proposed retaining wall, construction on slopes, and associated variances.
The proposed Project would be subject to both City and State regulations regarding public safety, slope stability and construction methods; please refer to Comment Response 17.5 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 21.7
The commenter states that the building height would exceed that of the City’s requirements, specifically that the City allows buildings up to 28 feet with a pitched roof, and that the IS-MND cross section indicates an elevator height of 44 feet and 1 inch.
The Project would be in compliance with the City’s requirements, with approval of SPR No. 18-025; please refer to Comment Response 17.6 for further discussion on this topic. 409
From: nicholas eliopoulos
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: proposed motel for 22959 PCH
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44:59 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I would like to express my support for the proposed motel across form the Malibu pier at 22959 PCH.
The motel would be a welcome addition to Malibu. I am a native Angeleno and have lived in Malibu.
When friends and family visit they always comment on the lack of nice lodging in Malibu.
It is such a beautiful place and Malibu very much needs more quality lodging.
The rendering shows a design that is beautiful and fits in so nicely with Malibu.
The motel is perfectly located across from the pier and beach.
There is a traffic light across from the motel which makes crossing to the pier and beach easily accessible.
The project seems to be extremely well planned and includes subterranean and grade level parking.
Having more lodging in Malibu will help alleviate the often-unwelcomed airbnb use.
I would enjoy patronizing a motel like this for myself and my visiting friends and family and to enjoy another dining
choice in Malibu. I was very excited to see this proposed motel and very much support the project.
Sincerely,
Nick Eliopoulos
22.1 410
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 22
Commenter: Nick Eliopoulos, Los Angeles resident
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 22.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment states support for the Project particularly the expansion of additional overnight accommodation. Comments regarding support for the Project that do not directly pertain to the analysis within the IS-MND will be included within the public record and made available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration.
411
From: Paul Astin
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Mark Dempster; Alexander Astin; u
Subject: Initial Study No. 20-003, Mitigated pment Permit No. 09-067, Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030 and 18-031, Site Plan Review No. 18-025, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 18-001
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:53:54 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I, Paul Astin, Trustee of the Astin Family Trust, the owner of 23034 PCH hereby join in and adopt in full the objections made by Mark Dempster at regarding the proposed developments across the street from our home.
We are extremely concerned on the impact this development as proposed will have on our home and community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Please also confirm you have received my email at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Paul Astin
23.1 412
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 23
Commenter: Paul Astin, Trustee of Astin Family Trust
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 23.1
The commenter expresses concern of impacts that could occur from the implementation of the Project, and specifically refers to the objections made by Mark Dempster regarding the development proposed across the street from their home. Please refer to the responses within Letter #21, which contains those of Mark and Kim Dempster. Additionally, comments that include general opposition to the project will be included within the public record and available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 413
From: uclagrad96
To: Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Mark Dempster; Kim Dempster ICE
Subject: Initial Study No. 20-003, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003, Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030 and 18-031, Site Plan Review No. 18-025, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 18...
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:21:00 PM
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I Robert J. Allan, Trustee of the Malibu Property Trust U/D/T 12/14/00, the owner of 23018 PCH hereby hereby join in and adopt in full the objections made by Mark Dempster at 23006 PCH, Malibu, CA.
We are extremely concerned on the impact this development as proposed will have on our home and community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Please also confirm you have received my email at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Robert J. Allan
24.1 414
City of Malibu
Malibu Inn Motel Project
Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Malibu Inn Motel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2021
Letter 24
Commenter: Robert Allan, Malibu Property Owner
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 24.1
Thank you for the comments regarding the proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The commenter expresses concern of impacts that could occur from the implementation of the proposed Project, and specifically refers to the objections made by Mark Dempster regarding the proposed Project. Please refer to the responses within Letter #21, which contains those of Mark and Kim Dempster. Additionally, comments that include general opposition to the project will be included within the public record and available to decision-makers for planning and policy consideration. 415
From: Roni Serrato
To: Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Project at 22959 Pacific Coast Hwy Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 5:05:29 PM
Hello Ms. Fernandez,
I am the residential owner at 23038 Pacific Coast
Highway (across the street and one of the six houses
next door to the Malibu Pier).
I am opposed to any aspect of this project. In fact, I
oppose a project that's even half this scale and impact.
What I do support is a project that is not a square inch larger than the Surfrider Hotel and one that follows
every single letter of the code without a single
variance, just as the Surfrider abided by with their
renovation.
MY view is that the owner and the architect of 22959
PCH actually don't want this project, as proposed. We
believe they are doing nothing more than playing a
game with the City of Malibu. That game is to submit a
set of basic drawings that reflects a maximum
footprint, per the square footage of the lot, and ask for every variance under the sun to make that proposal
achievable from an engineering and construction
standpoint. But, our suspicion is that the owner and
the architect know full well that there's zero chance of approval of this proposal, are expecting to get pushed
back to a more achievable and desirable project, but
one that still got a number of variances granted by the city.
The owner and architect could have followed a more
neighborly and measured process in drafting their first proposal. But, for their conscious game playing, we ask that the city put this project through the gauntlet of
following proper protocol.
Specifically, we ask that the city not grant this project the requested variances:
1. Non-Exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards per acre of commercial
development (asking to export 12,255 cubic
yards as reference)
25.1 416
2. Construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1
3. Surface parking beyond the required front yard
setback
4. Retaining walls in excess of six feet in height
(asking for a 52.5ft all wall above the
subterranean parking garage as reference)
Furthermore, we ask the city insist that this project not deviate from the following:
EIR - The City has indicated in this Staff Report
and Proposed Adoption that the project satisfies
a Negative Mitigated Declaration ("NMD") as
opposed to requiring a full Environmental
Investigation Report ("EIR"). Based on the scale
of this project, request for numerous variances
and obvious disruption to natural environment
disruption and risks and construction hurdles,
this should obviously. Refer to Pg3 to get an
understanding on the EIR requirement vs NMD
requirement.
EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 they only
list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as items of Risk.
However they should also be checking
Aesthetics due to the natural hillside landscape,
Air Quality through Construction with that much
earth movement and dust, Biological, Land/Use
Planning, Hydrology/Water Quality due to
Subterranean Parking
Construction & Subterranean Parking - The
creation of subterranean parking and a 55ft tall
retaining wall should create a massive amount
of heavy duty construction through the use of
foundation piles that will create major earth
vibration and sound during the course of
construction. Approving an enormously large
wall and subterranean parking would create a
significant impact to the existing landscape and
residential well being and creating a new
precedent for Malibu.
Retaining Wall, Construction on Slope, Non
Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to
the graphic below, you will see how much land
is being proposed to be removed from the
mountain which is quite enormous and will
trigger environmental and stability issues.This
project is requesting major variances and
should be considered within the more suitable
25.5 25.4
25.3 25.2
25.1 Cont
417
flat land, versus carving into the mountainside.
Height of Elevator Bulkhead - In Malibu, a
maximum building height can be 24' or 28' with
a pitched roof. As you can see in this plan the
height to the roof bulkhead of the elevator is
44'-1" which is significantly taller than the
allotted requirement. As a note, we were
building a similar elevator to take guests to our
roof deck and wee would've been at 29' due to
the nature of the elevator shaft, but also lower
than our existing roof line. Wee were denied
and ended up having to build one elevator that
goes from the ground to second floor and
another ADA lift from the 2nd floor to the roof
deck. Thereby this is another "variance / ask"
that seems to be out of place and should be
scrutinized.