If you need to contact me 310-990-5746
Sincerely,
Roni Serrato
25.6 25.5
cont
418
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 25
Commenter: Roni Serrato, Malibu Property Owner
Date: March 17, 2021
Response 25.1
Response 25.1
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 beyond 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 Comment Response 21.2 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 25.2
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 IS-MND addresses natural environment disruption, risks, and construction hurdles; please see Comment Response 17.2 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 25.3
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 IS-MND addresses potentially significant impacts; please see Comment Response 17.3 for further discussion on this topic.
Response 25.4
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 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. 419
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 25.5
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 25.6
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; please refer to Comment Response 17.6 for further discussion on this topic. 420
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: SUPPORT of Malibu Inn Motel
From: Judy Ettinger
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 12:42 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: SUPPORT of Malibu Inn Motel
Attn: Planning Commission
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. 421
ATTACHMENT 7
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel
From: B. Wadkins
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:47 PM
To: Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Karen Farrer <[email protected]>; Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]> Cc: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
To All Concerned,
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in the upcoming hearing for the Malibu Inn Motel project slated for the lot across the street from the Malibu Pier on PCH.
Although I am on the list for development projects in the vicinity, I have not received notices regarding this, nor have any of my Malibu neighbors. This project has somehow remained under the radar in local news as well.
This is of tremendous concern given that this area is already a traffic nightmare for anyone who travels this stretch of PCH that’s considered one of the most dangerous in California.
Among many concerns are the underground parking, safety issues relating to traffic, and the negative impact it will have one the character of our town.
How can a project of this scope have gotten so far without public comment? Regards,
B. Wadkins
Robert Rose
Steve Zirnite
ATTACHMENT 9
422
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
From: Brianna Ickes
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
To Whom it May Concern,
I am emailing regarding the current Malibu Inn Motel 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.
Furthermore, we could desperately use the tax revenue!
Bests,
Brianna
423
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST., SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001
(805) 585-1800
August 25, 2021
Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, Variance Nos. 18-029, 18-030, 18-31, and 20-035, Site Plan Review No. 18-025, Joint Parking Agreement No. 18-001, Initial Study No. 20-003, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20- 003
Dear Mr. Fernandez:
Commission staff has reviewed the staff report for the subject permit application that is scheduled to be considered by the City of Malibu Planning Commission on August 26, 2021, and we have several comments. The subject permit application includes 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, and a new onsite wastewater treatment system located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway. The project also includes a Variance (VAR) No. 18-029 for non-exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards per acre of commercial development, VAR No. 18-030 for construction on slopes 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, and VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback.
The staff report states that the applicant has indicated that the proposed accommodations will not meet the definition of luxury overnight accommodations. Further, the report states that should the accommodations be classified as luxury accommodations, the project has been conditioned to provide lower cost overnight accommodations either onsite, offsite, or through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City for deposit into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower cost overnight facilities.
Commission staff is in support of new visitor serving uses including overnight accommodations, particularly if they are lower cost. Among the most important goals and requirements of the Coastal Act and Malibu LCP is the mandate to protect, provide, enhance, and maximize public access, and specifically requires lower cost visitor serving facilities to be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. The Malibu LCP states that the City may approve new luxury overnight visitor serving accommodations if the evidence shows, and the City finds, that the proposed project provides a component of lower cost overnight visitor accommodations. Applicants are required to provide lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. 424
2 The LCP defines luxury overnight accommodations as the point at which the cost of an overnight room exceeds 120 percent of the median cost of an overnight room for all overnight accommodations in the City of Malibu. The staff report fails to indicate if the proposed project meets the definition of luxury overnight accommodations. We recommend that the staff report include additional information (i.e., proposed nightly room rate, the median cost of an overnight room in the City of Malibu, etc.) and analysis in order to fully address the project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan. Before the City’s action on the proposed project, the City should determine if the project meets the definition of luxury overnight accommodations, and if so, that the project has been designed to provide for a component of lower cost overnight visitor accommodations consistent with the LCP. The findings should explain the basis for the conclusions and decisions of the City and should be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lastly, if the proposed project constitutes luxury overnight visitor-serving accommodations, Commission staff recommends that lower-cost visitor accommodations be provided on-site rather than through the payment of an in-lieu fee given the absence of an identified City program or project to use such fees and the challenges with effectively pooling and using in-lieu fees to subsidize the construction of lower cost overnight facilities.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Denise Venegas
Coastal Program Analyst
cc: Richard Mollica, Planning Director, City of Malibu
425
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: 1C 8-26-21 Malibu Inn Motel
From: Chris Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:54 PM
To: Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Weil <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 1C 8‐26‐21 Malibu Inn Motel
Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required. Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days. Then residents can better understand this project.
Thank you,
Chris Jackson
426
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: item 1C malibu inn motel 8-26-21
From: Diane Moss
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:48 PM
To: John Mazza <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; David Weil <[email protected]>; Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: item 1C malibu inn motel 8‐26‐21
I write to express concerns about the Malibu Inn Motel project, which fellow neighbors recently brought to my attention. I was born and raised in Malibu and preserving what is left of the character and quality of life in our community after Woolsey and years of growth and increased traffic is deeply important to me. I ha The minimum I ask you to do is to require story poles to help the community better understand what is being proposed.
I also urge you to re-examine the traffic, evacuation, water, waste and parking impacts and requirements of this project.
Already traffic is tough in that part of Malibu, as you surely know. When the next fire evacuation comes, more every day traffic means more chances of people getting harmed our killed when trying to get out in a fire. I was on the Woolsey Task Force for LA County (and lost my hillside house in the fire), and one of the key takeaways was that Malibu got very lucky that there were not massive casualties from the gridlock getting out the south end of Malibu on PCH. We should not be tempting fate again.
Also all too often pedestrians who can't find parking close to their destination get hurt and trigger terrible accidents crossing on PCH, and I am concerned this project could increase that risk.
Lastly, it seems all too often these days that headlines read how California communities are running out of water. We need to be sure that the water requirements of this project long term match what our infrastructure and resources are capable of supplying.
Malibu deserves a slow, deliberate, transparent and cautious approach to reviewing this project. Story poles are a start.
A deeper look at the multiple impacts is also warranted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Moss
427
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: 1C 8-26-21 Malibu Inn Motel
From: Georgia Goldfarb, MD
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:33 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: 1C 8‐26‐21 Malibu Inn Motel
Dear Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required.
Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days so that residents can better understand this project.
Thank You.
Georgia Goldfarb
428
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 1C Malibu Inn Motel comments
From: Judy Villablanca
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:41 PM
To: John Mazza <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; David Weil <[email protected]>; Dennis <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 1C Malibu Inn Motel comments
To: Planning
Commission
Re: Malibu Inn
Motel Re : item: 1.C Malibu Inn Motel 8‐26‐21
OPPOSE – deny project.
Dear Commissioners,
Overall this project benefits the applicant and does not enhance the quality of life of Malibu residents. Many new developments proposed in Malibu state that the new revenue will benefit the city of Malibu. I would strongly question if this new revenue will really be used in a way to benefit Malibu residents such that it would offset the negative impacts outlined below.
The staff recommendation to permit numerous variances further weakens Malibu’s code by not enforcing it. Malibu should just enforce our code, which was established for good reasons and with much discussion to protect Malibu’s sensitive habitat, small town ambiance and rural character. The traffic impact alone will be a major negative impact for Malibu residents.
The Planning Commission should postpone their hearing until the required story poles are placed for residents and Planning Commissioners to view and comment. Why is this requirement being skipped?
Other significant issues include:
Traffic
The ND traffic analysis doesn’t reflect the reality of the traffic problem on this part of PCH.
There is frequent and regular traffic gridlock and severe traffic backup at this site during the summer and other warm weekends that is not mitigable. This project will make the traffic situation significantly worse.
429
2 This project also adds numerous more cars and people to evacuate during fires which is already a major issue, as well demonstrated during the Woolsey fire. There is not a way to mitigate this impact. It also added evacuees that are completely unfamiliar with fire evacuations and will add to the difficulty of efficient evacuation, which is still not established for current residents.
Wastewater
On 11‐4‐09 the applicant applied for a Shopping Plaza at this location. The next day the RWQRB prohibited the use of OWTP’s at this site. According to staff, because the shopping plaza applied the day before this ban was issued this project can have a OWTP since it is listed in the Board’s Resolution under Table 4‐zz.
New projects are not allowed to put in an OWTP in this area after the ban was put in place.
This proposed motel is not a revision of the shopping mall project and would create much more wastewater than the shopping plaza. Since the motel is a new and entirely different project submitted after the ban. this project can’t go forward until it can be hooked up to the Civic Center treatment plant. For this reason alone this motel project must be denied. To do otherwise in an intentional violation of the Ban.
Environmental Review
The Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed the former project but not the motel. Since this is a new project, ERB review should be required.
The environmental destruction of a bluff face will have a significant effect on the environment which is not acceptable. The project will require cutting into/ excavating a massive amount of the bluff more than 160 ft wide, 50 feet high and of an undisclosed depth.
The code allows for 1000 cubic yards of grading and the cut and fill should be balanced, remain on site and not be exported. The majority of excavated soil will have to be exported off site.
The significant departures from code requirements that are part of this proposal make 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 that does not require multiple major variances.
Geology
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” 430
3 This statement regarding the site geology should be a valid reason for denial of the project.
Height
The issues here point again to the need for story poles prior to project approval. The project ‘s height is far in excess of 24 ft. Height is measured from natural or finished grade whichever is lower. If the project wis only 24 ft high as staff asserts, there would be no need to have a 50 ft. high retaining wall. In reality, this proposed inn is likely 44+ ft high minimum. This project grade is not being measured from its lowest point as required by code. The code does not allow cutting into a bluff and then measuring the height from the bluff cut.
The proposed parking isn’t subterrain since much of it is at ground level. Building a berm around the above grade parking structure doesn’t make it subterrain which is what the applicant is proposing. This above grade portion of parking structure has to be added to the height of the structure.
Two stories is the maximum allowable height of a commercial structure. This project is 3 ½ ‐ 4 stories high including the above grade parking structure, the 2 story 24ft high motel and the roof deck with the elevator shaft and the guard rail around the roof deck both of which are not excluded when determining height under the code.
Retaining Wall
Retaining Walls can’t be over 12 ft in height under the code. This project retaining wall is at least 50 ft. in height because the project cuts into the bluff face which is not allowed.
Parking
The proposed parking is clearly inadequate for staff and a reason to deny the project. More than 3 employee parking spaces are needed on site. The proposal states there will be 20 employees onsite at peak times. If this is incorrect, then the applicant must correct this statement to the Planning Commission and the maximum number of employess on site should be a condition of planning approval. Parking is already a major issue in that area due to other commercial businesses.
Public Beach Access
The denial/loss of parking provided for visitors to the Malibu Pier will be significant and is not mitigable. This loss of parking is not acknowledged or analyzed in the ND? 431
4 In summary, a project that has multiple negative impacts that were not fully justified and requires multiple code variances should not be approved. Thank you for consideration of my comments.
Judy Villablanca
Malibu Resident
432
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: please read and consider commenting
From: Lester Tobias
Date: Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:46 PM
Subject: please read and consider commenting
To: Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
I don't know if you are aware or not but the planning department, planning commission and city council have begun to abandon all historical precedent on how projects have been reviewed and approved in our city.
Several reasonable residential projects are being raked over the coals in their reviews while the planning staff seemingly acts as consultants to hotel developers, restaurant developers and the notorious Crown Castle firm who shoves micro cell towers down our neighbors' throats on a regular basis.
A last minute email notice received today notifies us that tomorrow night the dirt lot next to Aviator Nation will be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission for a 20 room hotel with pool and public restaurant and bar. The project requires four variances, the most noticeable being for a 50 foot retaining wall across the rear of the property.
The planning staff, under the direction of Assistant Planning Director Adrian Fernandez, has crafted the staff report to suggest that this wall is worthy of the variance because a). the parcel can not be fully developed without it, and b) the building will mostly block the view of the wall. Never mind that that code maximum is 12 feet, and that the actual "findings" for a variance as written in the code can not be met. So now our planning department thinks that variances are okay if difficulties inherent to a site restrict an applicant from building what they want, as opposed to what the code will allow. When have we EVER assumed that?
Included in the staff report are many, many letters of opposition to the project that came in during the Negative Mitigation Declaration public comment period. To read the staff's responses to the opposition is surreal: it may as well have been written by the applicant's legal team (which it may very well have been).
This project follows on the heels of another project where the planning staff, planning commission and city council all agreed with Scott Gillen and Don Schmitz that 28 foot tall walls can be built up to the setback lines (front, side and rear) when the code has always limited them to 24 feet. This ruling will affect every parcel, street and neighborhood in Malibu for years to come.
As someone who has his pulse on the planning issues in the city, I am sending you this email because I know you to be an engaged citizen and now a person who knows the power of the planning department over our lives and our fortunes. I am telling you that at this moment in time, I cannot make rhyme nor reason out of an increasing number of staff reports, commission decisions, and council directives that seem to be rooted in personal preferences/opinions, or outside influences, and not in the laws that govern the built environment (and upon which the citizenry should be able to rely).
From my perspective, tomorrow night's hearing is not about whether the Hakim's should or should not be able to build their hotel. Rather, it is about the cascading effect of these types of approvals. For example, if Norm gets his hotel, pool and restaurant (which he will) and the Hakims get their hotel, pool, and restaurant, all of a sudden the Mani Brothers will come back and correctly state that they are being denied their pool unfairly. And then the Surfrider will come back for a retaining wall and a pool behind their building. And on, and on. 433
2 So I am not asking for you to voice your opposition to the Hakim's Hotel (unless you want to). I am asking that you demand consistency and application of the rule of law, the words in the zoning code and where necessary, the interpretation of its obvious intent to ALL projects being proposed. Or, if our elected and appointed officials and their hired guns decide to start handing out variances like candy, then please demand that we mere homeowners get the same preferential treatment.
You can email the planning commission via Kathleen Stecko at the city. [email protected].
Here is the link to the project via the city website.
https://www.malibucity.org/list.aspx?MID=1904
‐‐
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
434
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: 1C 8-26-21 Malibu Inn Motel
From: Maggie Lückerath
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Aug 25, 2021 4:56 pm
Subject: 1C 8-26-21 Malibu Inn Motel
Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required.
Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days then residents can better understand this project .
Thank You.
Maggie Lückerath
435
1 MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE
Commissioners,
STORY POLES!!!
Construction of The Malibu Inn Motel has the potential to change the character of Malibu forever.
Located across from the Pier, this is a key location that could make the center of Malibu into a city-like canyon instead of a pedestrianfriendly, beach oriented town center. It cuts into the slope of a natural bluff and requires a 50ft high retaining wall. The removal of dirt to construct this hotel and the necessary construction vehicles will disrupt traffic on PCH for years. The increased density will further clog the already challenged PCH that is Malibu’s only major artery and evacuation route. The horrific traffic jam as residents of Western Malibu attempted evacuation during the Woolsey Fire in 2018 still haunts many residents today. Accidents on PCH are a weekly occurrence.
It is a puzzle why this is being pushed through as it will change the character of central Malibu forever and set an irreversible precedent.
We insist that STORY POLES be installed prior to the
Planning Commission’s Special Meeting now scheduled
for August 26th.
It is customary for residents to install story poles so neighbors have an opportunity to comment on neighboring projects. Why should this project that requires innumerable variances not be required to install story poles?
436
2 It is important that residents and decision makers alike understand fully the enormous impact this supersized project will have on Malibu’s character.
Construction of the Malibu Inn Motel would harm current and future residents, their quality of life and safety.
By recommending numerous variances and CUP’s the City is undoing the codes that were put in place to protect to Malibu’s environmentally sensitive habitat, small town ambiance and rural character.
The responsibility of every Commissioner, Council person and most importantly City Hall Staff is to make decisions based on the Malibu Vision Statement:
Malibu is a unique land and marine environment and
residential community whose citizens have historically
evidenced a commitment to sacrifice urban and suburban
conveniences in order to protect that environment and
lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics. The people of Malibu are a responsible custodian of the area’s natural resources for present and future generations.
And the Mission Statement:
Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and
commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE asks you to deny the
construction of the Malibu Inn Motel. It is not beneficial to the residents of Malibu for many reasons including but not limited to the following:
1. The project harms residents.
It would degrade residents’ quality of life not enhance it.
2. Wastewater
437
3 New projects are not allowed to put in an OWTP in this area after the ban was put in place. This proposed motel is not a revised project. It is an entirely new and different project and bears no resemblance to originally proposed shopping plaza. A motel would produce much more wastewater.
3. Environmental Review Board.
This project requires review by the Environmental Review Board.
The ERB reviewed the former shopping plaza project but not the motel even though the project is entirely different and requires ERB review.
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND)
Staff is recommending you make these 2 findings that the Planning Commission in good faith can’t make.
1. 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 cumulative impacts of this project are significant for many reasons, including, the traffic impact at this location, parking, and unallowable wastewater disposal.
2. 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.
The environmental destruction of a bluff face will indeed have a significant effect on the environment.
This environmental devastation is unheard of in the City of Malibu and is not allowed or acceptable.
438
4 Driving along PCH one will pass a wall of concrete and glass that would replace the face of a natural bluff. Walking back along the pier the view would be of a concrete structure not a bluff.
Stating that ‘’the Project would only alter the lower approximately 50 feet of the slope, while the upper 130 feet remain unaltered” is an astonishing and unrealistic statement.
Imagine what would happen if the bluff gave way dumping literally tons of dirt onto PCH and possibly the house that sits on top of the bluff. Human lives are at risk.
INSTALL STORY POLES!!!
Provide residents the opportunity to comprehend the
proposed height of the Malibu Inn Motel that is far in excess of 24 ft. above natural or finished grade whichever is lower.
Why would they need a 50 ft. retaining wall if it were only 24 ft. high?
Consider the difficulty of integrating a property that is so much higher than its neighboring structures into the existing streetscape. The installation of story poles from the lowest point of existing or finished grade will define the project and demonstrate the awkward relationship to the adjacent
properties.
Please insist on story poles. Why should a developer be exempt from installing story poles when residents trying to rebuild their homes after the Woolsey Fire have had to install them prior to receiving their building permits?
Malibu residents deserve a thorough, transparent and
respectful review of this project.
439
5 Story poles are a beginning. But also a closer investigation of the actual impact on the environment and the community is required.
PLEASE INSTALL STORY POLES PRIOR TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DELAY THE
MEETING UNTIL IT CAN BE DONE.
GIVE MALABU A CHANCE.
Thank you for your consideration.
Charlotte Frieze
Founding Member
Malibu Open Space Alliance
440
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: 1C 8-26-21 Malibu Inn Motel
From: Peggy Hall Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:31 PM
To: Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Weil <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 1C 8‐26‐21 Malibu Inn Motel
Commissioners, The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required. Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days so residents can then better understand this project . Thank You.
Peggy Hall Kaplan
441
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Subject: Item 1C malibu inn motel 8-26-21
From: Rosie Strickland
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 8:04 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; john mazza <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; David Weil <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Item 1C malibu inn motel 8‐26‐21
Commissioners
Construction of The Malibu Inn Motel has the potential to change the character of Malibu forever.
Located across from the Pier, this is a key location that could make the center of Malibu into a city‐like canyon instead of a pedestrian‐friendly, beach oriented town center. It cuts into the slope of a natural bluff and requires a 50ft high retaining wall. The removal of dirt to construct this hotel and the necessary construction vehicles will disrupt traffic on PCH for years. The increased density will further clog the already challenged PCH that is Malibu’s only major artery and evacuation route. The horrific traffic jam as residents of Western Malibu attempted evacuation during the Woolsey Fire in 2018 still haunts many residents today. Accidents on PCH are a weekly occurrence.
We live in Big Rock and experienced the huge slide on PCH at Big Rock that was caused by Cal Trans cutting into the slope. PCH was impacted for months, homes lost, lives endangered, property values plummeted, and law suits brought.
Please use good common sense and do not allow the construction of the Malibu Inn Motel.
Thank you,
Rosie and Bob Strickland
442
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel
From: Suzannah Owens
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:19 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
To Whom it May Concern,
I am emailing regarding the current Malibu Inn Motel 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.
Furthermore, we could desperately use the tax revenue!
Best,
Suzannah
443
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Proposed Malibu beach inn motel
Date: Friday, August 27, 2021 8:30:28 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Molloy
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Malibu beach inn motel
Please require the proposed Malibu beach in. Motel to be story poled before the planning department will consider it. Best. Tom molloy
Sent from my iPhone
444
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: The Malibu Inn Motel project
From: Cami Winikoff
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 10:53 AM
Subject: The Malibu Inn Motel project
Hi Patricia and Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required.
Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days then residents can better understand this project.
Thank You,
Cami Winikoff and Scott Greco
445
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Story polls 1c. August 6, 2021 Malibu hotel inn From: Elizabeth Lynch
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 10:38 AM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Story polls 1c. August 6, 2021 Malibu hotel inn Please request that the mandated story polls be put up 30 days before your meeting.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lynch
Sent from my iPad
446
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Comment Item # 1B - 1C
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:15:35 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-03-17 at 11.33.23 AM.png
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Subject: Comment Item # 1B - 1C
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, 447
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
448
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:21:16 PM
From:
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Sent: 8/25/2021 6:10:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required. Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days so residents can better understand this project and its violations of current height restrictions.
Why do some of you continue to support projects that serve local developers at the expense of the quality of life of Malibu's residents? This one will cause even more congestion in an already stressed section of PCH, mostly to the benefit of Malibu's most insatiable parasite. It seems like Malibu operates as a business instead of a service. Maybe these projects benefit the personal interests of some of you? These projects certainly don't benefit the residents of Malibu!!! Sincerely yours,
Jamie Dixon
449
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Item 1C malibu inn motel 8-26-21
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:20:05 PM
From: Jo Drummond <
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:23 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]> Cc: Colin Drummond ; Georgia Goldfarb
< >; Rosemarie Ihde <
Subject: Item 1C malibu inn motel 8-26-21
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has a multitude of reasons why it needs to be continued and not approved as applied for.
Firsty, the applicant failed to put up the required storypoles in order for the residents and decision makers to see the visual impact of this project. Most residents are not aware of this project and it will give residents and other interested parties the right to make their opinion of the height and scale known to the Commission. This is especially important since the actual height is being questioned. Many projects on pch are not properly story poled and it is totally surprising to see giant multi lot builds going up right now as they have been so recently and we wonder how such gigantic projects get approved that obviously add more water, mass & sea walls to the delicate eroding oceanfront thus not preserving our natural environment.
We ask that you deny this project: - by recommending numerous variances and CUP’s the city is undoing the codes that were put in place to protect Malibu’s environmental sensitive habitat, small town ambiance and rural character. Variances and CUPs which are to be rarely given are doled out to developers much too often. Putting up an occasional resident’s visitor in a local hotel is hardly an amenity that can be enjoyed by the majority of Malibu’s residents.
The city’s funds are not going towards funding open green or beachfront spaces and creating community centers as it should be.
New project’s are not allowed to put in an OWTP in this area after the ban was put in place.
The motel will be creating much more wastewater with its daily guests and staff. Since the motel is a new and entirely different project with new zoning submitted after the ban, this project can’t go forward until it can be hooked up to the Civic Center treatment plant.For this reason alone this motel project must be denied. To do otherwise in an intentional violation of the Ban.
450
In the original Shopping Plaza project the applicant would not be cutting into the coastal bluff thus altering the natural environment. This is just one example as to why this project has to be reviewed and commented on by the ERB prior to consideration. Nowhere in the code is there a provision allowing cutting into a bluff or steep slope. Therefore, it is not allowed. The environmental destruction of a bluff face will have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA exemptions should not apply as the cumulative impacts of this project on the environment are significant for many reasons, including, the traffic impact at this location, parking, and unallowable increased wastewater
disposal, aesthetics, urbanization of Malibu, safe evacuation and the failure to construct projects that meet the development criteria/standards set forth in the Municipal Code and MLCP.
The geology is unstable. The ND states: “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”. Serious geological slope stability & seismic stability studies of the entire area need to be completed before any building can commence.
The code allows for 1000 cu yds of grading and the cut and fill should be balanced, remain on site and not be exported. No more than this should be allowed and not on a slope.
The Municipal Code and MLCP were enacted to prevent the continuation of oversized urban county allowed type of construction. So please do not allow any height variance. This project’s grade is not being measured from its lowest point as required by code. Nowhere in the code does it allow one to cut into a bluff and then measure the height from the bluff cut.
Moreover, the so called subterranean parking isn’t subterrain since much of it is at ground level. Building a berm around the above grade parking structure doesn’t make it subterrain which is what the applicant is proposing. This above grade portion of parking structure has to be added to the height of the structure and has to be included when measuring the height.
See https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/27710/Malibu-InnMotel_Renderings Two stories is the maximum allowable height of a commercial structure. This project is 3 ½ - 4 stories high including the above grade parking structure, the 2 story 24ft high motel and the roof deck with the elevator shaft and the guard rail around the roof deck both of which are not excluded when determining height under the code. It much exceeds the height restrictions.
451
Retaining Walls can’t be over 12 ft in height under the code. This project’s retaining wall is at least 50 ft. in height because the project cuts into the bluff face which is not allowed.
The number of parking spaces are less than what are needed. More than 3 employee parking spaces are needed on site. The ND states there will be 20 employees onsite at peak times. Since there is no room for the employees to park on site this project should be denied.
Stacked parking is dangerous in an emergency. If you want to approve this project, prior to such approval the applicant should be required to submit a credible evacuation plan in case of an emergency such as a wildfire or earthquake. An EIR or further study is needed to analyze this situation because in an emergency a very dangerous situation is being created.
The joint use parking agreement with the Aviation Nation doesn’t provide for sufficient onsite parking when the restaurant dining area is at capacity, the outdoor tent is in use and/or they have bands and other entertainment on site.
The project needs be studied in conjunction with the traffic circulation and offsite parking impacts created by the Sea View Hotel, the Malibu Beach Inn, Avis lot parking, Nobu, Soho House, Malibu Pier, The Farm Restaurants on the Pier, Malibu Ryokan, Surfrider Motel, Aviation Nation as well as Surfrider beach parking east of the Adamson house. The cumulative 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 not right to add another project that will further impede traffic flow and street parking.
The denial/loss of parking provided for visitors for public access to the Malibu Pier will be significant and is not mitigable.
It is well known to that there is not enough parking in the vicinity for the users of these facilities and their employees. This area of PCH is highly congested.
The ND traffic analysis doesn’t reflect the reality of the traffic problem on this busiest part of PCH. In actuality, there is traffic gridlock and severe traffic backup on a regular and continuous basis during rush hour and in the summer and it is significant and not mitigable. This project will create additional car trips and more parking on pch which should not be allowed since it will make the traffic situation incrementally worse. The worst case situation has to be analyzed. The city’s traffic studies do not reflect reality.
A traffic management plan should be required prior to consideration so the impact of this project is known to the decision makers and the public
For obvious reasons condition 50 should not allow any parking on site for filming. As far 452
as the TUP, if the event is not being held by and attended by registered guests all parking is required off site. The TUP should require a parking location that is not on street parking.
It is also highly likely that significant cultural resources or a Chumash burial could be found on this site. All along this area east of the Malibu Creek at various times Chumash artifacts and burials have been found. Therefore, a phase one study needs to be done and Chumash monitor must be on site during any demolition, soil disturbance, grading /excavation. Please add this as a condition.
A condition of approval should be added that if room rates rise to meet this luxury threshold then there must be a required number of rooms to be set aside for low cost accommodations.
If the Commission is considering approving this project please add the following: a condition that all trash receptacles will comply with the Lid Lock ordinance, and that all laundry will be done off site to reduce precious water consumption.
Please deny this project for the reasons stated above. No project should be approved that require so many discretionary approvals. If you are not going to deny this project and the Commission is considering approving this project, prior to approval an EIR and various other studies have to be done in order for you to make the right decision. The very fact that this project is a significant departure from the code requirements makes an EIR necessary.
Thank you for for thoughtful deliberation and consideration for the safety and future of Malibu.
Jo & Colin Drummond
453
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Letter re 8/26 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel) Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:07:54 PM
Attachments: 8-26-21 Letter to Planning Commission re Agenda Item 1.C..pdf Importance: High
From: Marshall A. Camp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:10 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kathleen Stecko <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; John Cotti <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter re 8/26 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel) Importance: High
Chair Jennings and City staff,
Please find attached a letter submitted in connection with tonight’s meeting of the Malibu Planning Commission, Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel). We respectfully request that this letter be distributed to the Members of the Commission and be made part of the record for tonight’s meeting.
Thank you,
Marshall Camp
Marshall A. Camp
___________________________________
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
D: 213.788.4541
T:
Biography
Los Angeles CA 90014
454
MARSHALL A. CAMP
Partner
Los Angeles, CA 90014
August 26, 2021
5837087
VIA E-MAIL
Jeffrey Jennings, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265-4861
[email protected]
Re: August 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. – Malibu Motel Dear Chair Jennings and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Mani Brothers Real Estate and affiliated companies that own properties in the vicinity of the proposed Malibu Motel, including the Malibu Beach Inn, located at 22878 PCH; the former Hertz lot at 22853 PCH; and the multifamily properties at 22640 and 22648 PCH (collectively, the “Mani Brothers”).
The Mani Brothers oppose the Malibu Motel, including the entitlements and approvals sought in connection with Agenda Item 1.C. at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Grounds for the opposition include, without limitation, the following:
1. The Proposed Use is a Hotel Prohibited in the CV-1 Zone. The proposed use is not a “motel” or “bed and breakfast inn” and is properly classified as a “hotel” under the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Zoning Code. Hotels are prohibited under the site’s current CV-1 zoning.
As defined in the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Zoning Code, a “motel” is “a group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land, [and] does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms”. (LIP
2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.) The proposed project fails to meet this definition in two significant respects.
First, there is no direct access from the guest rooms to the parking. None of the guest rooms are on the same level as the parking. To get from their rooms to the parking garage below, guests will need to travel through common walkways and corridors and use the common elevator or common stairs.
Second, the project includes a dedicated bar serving the large rooftop deck area, as well as a full commercial kitchen for food service. The rooftop deck and amenities would be used by motel guests on a daily basis, but events that would bring in visitors can be held onsite in the motel subject to City approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), including “weddings, B’nai Mitzvahs, parties, corporate events, and other festivities.” (Agenda Report, p. 13.) These amenities, such as the rooftop bar and 455
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
lounge, commercial kitchen and special event space, clearly distinguish this project from a “motel” and bring it within the definition of “hotel,” i.e., “a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and providing additional services, such as restaurants and meeting rooms.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.)1 Accordingly, this project cannot be approved without a zone change and LCP amendment to redesignate the site from CV-1 to CV-2 to allow a hotel.
2. Loss of Beach Parking. As stated in the Commission’s agenda report, the site is currently improved with a parking lot containing 40 spaces, of which at least 24 are required for the adjacent Aviator Nation restaurant/retail property. The remainder of the parking spaces have been used as beach parking (see February 2021 photo attached hereto as Exhibit A showing parking attendant shack and banner advertising “Beach Parking”).
The proposed motel includes 47 parking spaces, of which 24 will continue to be used for the adjacent Aviator Nation property. This leaves only 23 spaces for the Malibu Motel (far short of what code requires, as discussed below) and leaves zero spaces for beach parking. This represents an unmitigated loss of at least 16 spaces (from 40 to 24) currently available for beach parking. This loss of beach parking violates important policies of the Coastal Act and Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)2 and creates a significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR.
3. Insufficient Parking for the Motel. As explained above, the project should be classified as a “hotel” and not as a “motel.” Under the LIP and Zoning Code, a hotel requires two parking spaces per room, plus additional spaces for food and beverage serving area and employees. (LIP 3.14.3; MMC 17.48.030.) This would result in a parking requirement more than twice the 23 spaces provided for the Malibu Motel (47 total onsite, less 24 dedicated for the use of Aviator Nation).
Even if the property were required to provide only the number of spaces required for a “motel,” there would still be more than 23 spaces required. Staff calculated that 23 spaces were required based on the “motel” standard of one space per room, plus one space for each employee assuming three employees per shift. (LIP 3.14.3.) But the assumption of only three employees per shift is clearly too low. For example, at 5:00 pm on a typical day, the property would require at minimum seven (7) employees: a parking valet, a front desk clerk, a manager, a food prep chef, a dishwasher/bar back, a bartender, and a pool attendant/server. If any housekeeping personnel were still on site, the number would be even higher.
1 The proposed use also does not constitute a “bed and breakfast inn,” which is defined as “a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public and providing kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests of the facility only and not otherwise open to the public.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC
12.02.060.) While the project contemplates transient lodging and a commercial kitchen, so does any hotel.
Read in context with the definitions of motel and hotel, the term “bed and breakfast inn” was intended to reflect the traditional notion of a quaint, rural lodging house that offers breakfast to a handful of guests. A bustling, 20-room property at the pier with rooftop bar and dining service late into the night for its 30-40 guests along with public weddings and events is a hotel, not a B&B. Notably, the agenda report and proposed resolution uniformly refer to the project as a “motel” and never as a “bed & breakfast inn.” 2 Policies of the Malibu LCP include coastal access and the provision of adequate off-street parking. (See, e.g., LIP 1.2, paragraphs C and H.)
456
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
The project plans also reveal that the parking spaces provided do not conform to the stall sizes required by code. Except for the 20% allowed to be compact spaces, all standard stalls must be at least 9’ by 20’. The dimensions called out on the applicant’s Proposed Subterranean Garage Plan appear inaccurate, inconsistent and potentially misleading. (See Agenda Report at p. 87.) Simply by way of example, the plan appears to depict dimensions for spot #16, which is labeled as an “8’ x 16’ Compact Stall,” that are roughly identical to adjacent stalls labeled “9’x20’”:
(Agenda Report at p. 87.) And bizarrely, spot #25 appears to be labeled both “9’x20’” and “8’x16’”:
(Id.)
457
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
The same plan also shows a dead-end parking aisle with no adequate turnaround as prohibited by Zoning Code § 17.48.050(D) & LIP 3.14.5(D):
(Id.)
4. Project Exceeds the Maximum Allowable Height and Stories. The maximum height allowed for a new commercial building under the LCP is 24 feet (or 28 feet for a pitched roof) and two stories. (LIP
3.8(A)(1)(b).) As shown by the project’s south elevation (see Exhibit “B” to this letter), however, the project is actually four stories and over 40 feet tall. At the base is the entry lobby and reception area, together with an enclosed parking garage. The second and third levels contain the guest rooms and commercial kitchen. The top floor contains the pool deck, elevator box, and a roofed bar area.
Each of these four levels is a “story” under the LCP, which defines a “story” as: “that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the roof above.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.) Contrary to the Agenda Report‘s erroneous references to the project as a “two-story motel” (see e.g., p.11, referring only to the second and third levels which contain guest rooms) the first floor lobby/parking levels and the top floor pool and bar are also stories.
Indeed, the top floor is not only used as habitable floor area, but portions are roofed (to wit, the elevator box and bar), and these roofed portions squarely meet all aspects of the code definition for a fourth “story.” (See Ex. B.) Similarly, although the code states that a “basement” is not a story, the lobby/parking level does not meet the definition of a “basement,” i.e. “that portion of a building or an area 458
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
enclosed by walls located below finished grade and beneath or partially beneath the first floor footprint above, where the vertical distance from finished grade to the bottom of the finished floor above is no more than 3 vertical feet at all points around the perimeter of all exterior walls.” (Emphasis added.) Although the proposed motel will be built into the hillside and the lower level is partially below ground, the front (southerly) edge of the ground floor will be fully exposed and “daylighted” to at least a 10 foot height, as shown on Ex. B to this letter, and on pages 92 and 135 of the agenda report. The architect’s failed attempt to simulate a basement condition by flanking the exposed lobby frontage with dirt planters does not change the fact that the lower level includes at least a 10 foot height of exposed frontage and cannot be considered a “basement” as defined by code.
5. General Plan Inconsistencies. The proposed project clearly violates the following policies of the City of Malibu General Plan Land Use Element:
a. Section 1.1 in the Introduction to the Land Use Element states: “Commercial areas are limited to small neighborhood serving and visitor serving uses interspersed throughout the City ….” By contrast, the proposed project at four stories would be the tallest hotel approved to date in Malibu, and it would create the third hotel/motel in this immediate area (within approximately 500 feet of the Malibu Pier), which is already congested with restaurants and tourist facilities. b. LU Implementation Measure 67 requires a commercial planned development permit for any commercial development or change of use of existing development to assure compliance with current codes. The applicant here has not sought a planned development permit and the project does not comply with current codes (stories, setbacks, parking, grading, etc.) as documented in this letter. c. Section 1.5.4 of the Land Use Element states that the CV designation for this site provides for uses that serve visitors and residents, such as hotels and restaurants “which respect the rural character and natural environmental setting.” The imposing, four-story structure proposed here to be cut into the hillside would be entirely urban in character and—literally and figuratively—undercut the natural setting and terrain.
6. Inconsistencies with the LCP and Zoning Code. As noted above, the project violates so many provisions of the LCP and Zoning Code (excessive grading, height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, parking standards, retaining wall height, etc.) that it requires multiple variances and discretionary approvals to be approved. Many of these inconsistencies are openly identified and admitted by planning staff in the 47-page staff memorandum included in the agenda report. Others are identified above in this letter.
The required variances are not supported by the required findings.
For example, the agenda report claims that the hillside must be carved out because of “special circumstances,” citing the steep slopes at the rear of the lot. (Agenda Report at 23.) Those steep slopes, however, are far from unique in Malibu—to the contrary, they are the typical condition for most of the inland lots along PCH. Another variance allows for a 46-foot high retaining wall—more than three times the 12 foot maximum. This wall again is needed not for any unique condition of the property, but only because of the applicant’s desire to build into the hillside for the purpose of claiming that this fourstory structure only has a height of 24 feet by the trick of terracing back the building against the hillside and measuring vertically parallel to the slope. A third variance is required for parking in the front yard setback, which still does not provide sufficient parking for both the use and the 24 spaces already dedicated to the Aviator Nation property next door. The self-imposed voluntary arrangement made by 459
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
the property owner to sell perpetual parking rights to a neighbor should not be later used as a hardship justification for a variance to allow extra parking spaces located in the front yard setback.
7. CEQA Defects. The City has improperly used a mitigated negative declaration for this project, when an EIR should have been prepared in light of the project’s stark inconsistencies with the General Plan, LCP and Zoning Code as noted above. The MND failed to address additional traffic impacts and safety risks associated with this highly congested section of PCH. These include increased nighttime trips, increased nighttime pedestrian crossings of PCH by hotel guests, and increased nighttime left turns into and out of the unsignalized/uncontrolled driveways. Although my clients deal with these issues at the Malibu Beach Inn and believe they can be adequately mitigated, the City disagreed and cited these kinds of alleged PCH safety concerns in denying the Malibu Beach Inn’s pool and offsite parking application. The proposed Malibu Motel project should be held to the same standard, particularly because of the congestion and greater PCH crossings at this location directly across from the beach, and the shops and restaurants at the Malibu Pier.
The Planning Commission is respectfully urged to deny the proposed approvals for the reasons set forth above, as well as the many other grounds for denial raised in the voluminous public correspondence submitted in opposition to this project. If the project is to be brought forward again for further consideration, it should first be revised to be consistent with existing City plans and policies, and then evaluated in an EIR before returning to the Planning Commission for additional hearings.
Sincerely,
Marshall A. Camp
cc: John Cotti, City Attorney (via e-mail)
Kathleen Stecko (via e-mail)
460
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
Exhibit “A”
Existing Beach Parking at the Site
461
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
Exhibit “B”
Proposed South Elevation
462
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Motel Project
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:27:22 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lawrence <
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 26, 2021 11:50 am
Subject: Motel Project
Commissioners, The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required.
Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days then residents can better understand this project . Thank You.
Richard Lawrence, President
Rebel Entertainment Partners, Inc.
463
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel across the pier! Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:09:35 PM
From: Rosemarie Ihde <
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:32 AM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Weil <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel across the pier!
Commmissioners, the proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required. Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days then residents can better understand this project . Thank You.
Rosemarie Ihde
Gerhard Ihde
464
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Conditional Use Permit Amendment No 13-006 and Joint Meeting tonight re: Conditional Use Parking Agreement No. 14-001 – An application to amend Conditional Use Permit No 09-009 and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 10-001
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 3:36:46 PM
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 3:29 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Cc: Paul Astin < >; Roni Neighbor < ; Mark
Dempster < ; Kim Dempster < ; Robert Allan
<
Subject: Conditional Use Permit Amendment No 13-006 and Joint Meeting tonight re: Conditional Use Parking Agreement No. 14-001 – An application to amend Conditional Use Permit No 09-009 and Joint Use Parking Agreement No. 10-001
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
I am a neighbor across the street from the Malibu Inn and the proposed motel site.
I have recently returned from an out of town trip and just found out about the hearing tonight for the Malibu Inn proposed parking changes and motel project.
I am surprised that the City would schedule a hearing so soon after issuing the Staff report.
I do not think there has been sufficient notice given to the residents and community about the hearing for such a large project.
I formally request that the City continue the hearing in order for residents and the community to review and respond to the Staff Report.
Please advise.
Thank you,
Stella Yap
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (310) 456-3024 and delete all copies of the message and any attachment. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege. To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. 465
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:23:59 PM
From: Stephanie Kuluva <
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:46 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Malibu Inn Motel Project
Commissioners,
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel project across the street from the Malibu Pier has not been story polled as required. Please ask the owner prior to your hearing this matter to put up the required story polls for 30 days then residents can better understand this project .
Thank You.
Stephanie Kuluva
466
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Conditions Revisions Requested Attachments: Conditions Requested to Revise.pdf; Memo To Planning Commission Aug 26 2021.pdf; 29320 - 22969 Pacific Coast Highway Noise Impact Study.pdf
From: Steven Hakim
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 9:58 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Doug Burdge Malibu Architect, Alex Hakim
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Conditions Revisions Requested Dear Commissioners,
Please see attached memo and attachments. We appreciate your time and consideration.
Best,
Steven
Steven Hakim
467
468
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
Client:
Contact:
Phone:
Email:
Address:
SKA Group, LLC
Alex Hakim
Steven Hakim
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Apr 2, 2019
Subject: 22969 Pacific Coast Highway – Noise Impact Study A. Executive Summary
Omny Acoustics (OMNY) has prepared this noise impact report on behalf of SKA Group, LLC (CLIENT).
Specifically, this noise impact study is regarding the proposed live music to be performed at the outdoor patio area of the restaurant located at 22969 Pacific Coast Highway until 10PM. In particular, the City of Malibu has requested a noise impact analysis from the live music be assessed at the nearby residential area just southwest of the pier across the highway (See Figure 1 below). The City has requested a study that demonstrates the proposed outdoor live entertainment will not be plainly audible within five feet of any residential dwelling.
Figure 1 Birds eye view of CLIENT patio (blue), nearby residential land uses (red), and approximate OMNY ambient noise level measurement position (green star). 04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
1 of 12
469
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
Although audibility is dependent on a multitude of factors, it can be generally accepted that if the patio generated music levels are found to be at or below existing ambient noise levels, that this would result in levels that are not plainly audible under normal circumstances. Although existing ambient noise levels vary throughout the day, and between weekends and weekdays, OMNY has measured the existing ambient noise levels during the lowest expected ambient noise period (9PM-10PM on a weekday evening). In this way, OMNY is considering the worst case scenario. By showing levels not to be plainly audible at five feet from the residential land uses at this time period, all other noisier time periods (e.g. weekday afternoons, weekend evenings, etc.) can also be determined to be compliant.
Noise levels measured during this 9PM-10PM period were found to be 71 dBA1 Leq2. Details regarding these measurements can be found in Section C of this report.
OMNY has provided an outdoor noise propagation model that calculates the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level in the restaurant patio, as measured at the perimeter of the patio, that would result in noise levels at the nearest residential land use, to be at or below the existing ambient noise level of 71 dBA Leq. This Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level has been determined to be 89 dBA Leq. Details on this analysis can be found in Section D.1.
In order to maintain music levels that would still allow for conversations between customers, as is the desire of the CLIENT, OMNY has determined that music levels would normally not exceed 85 dBA within the patio area.
Details on this analysis can be found in Section D.2. Assuming the CLIENT maintains music levels at or below 89 dBA in the patio area, with longer term averages not exceeding 85 dBA, OMNY finds that the patio music will not be plainly audible as measured five feet from any nearby residential land use considered in this report. As any louder levels would result in extreme difficulty for customers to converse, it would seem in the CLIENT’s best interest to self govern such levels at or below these limits. 1 dBA – A-weighted sound pressure level.
2 Leq – The equivalent continuous sound pressure level for the time period. Although technically different, can be generally thought of as acoustical average.
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
2 of 12
470
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
B. Code Review
As both the restaurant at 22969 Pacific Coast Highway, and the nearest residential land use identified at 23006 Pacific Coast Highway, are both within Malibu City limits, the Malibu Municipal Code will likely be the most enforceable regulations, but Los Angeles County Code has also been included for thoroughness. The California Building Code, has no regulations that would be applicable to this particular situation, and thus has been omitted from this report.
The following sections summarize and comment on how the given code sections are applicable to this project, and how compliance has been determined. For full code sections, please refer to the code itself, though OMNY has provided a copy of the code sections mentioned below, at the end of this report for reference.
1. Malibu Municipal Code
i) Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations
Summary
In Chapter 5.04 Section 100.D.1, it states:
Whenever, upon due notice and hearing pursuant to Section 7.10.010, it shall be determined by the city manager or city council that noise from any business activity licensed under this Chapter interferes with the right of persons dwelling in the vicinity of such business activity to the peaceful and quiet use and enjoyment of their property, or that the business activity licensed under this chapter is in violation of the Noise Ordinance of the city, the city manager or city council may require that the premises of the business activity be soundproofed to eliminate the noise or reduce it to a reasonable level. In taking any action under this Section, the city manager or city council shall balance all of the interests of the respective parties, as well as the hardship which will result from any such noise mitigation measures. If the city manager or city council finds that the noise complained of is minimal or inconsequential, no action shall be taken under this section.
Omny Acoustics Comments
OMNY has shown the noise levels at the residential properties to be minimal or inconsequential by comparing them with existing ambient noise levels. The minimum existing ambient noise levels were measured to be 71 dBA 1-hr Leq (See Section C) and under normal operating circumstances the patio produced noise levels are not expected to exceed 61.1 dBA as measured in the same location (See Section D.2).
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
3 of 12
471
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
ii) Title 8 Health and Safety (Subjective)
Summary
Sections 8.24.040, and 8.24.050 provide various subjective restrictions on noises that are considered “unnecessary, annoying, or unnatural.”
Omny Acoustics Comments
As these subjective requirements are not directly measurable, they are difficult to enforce directly. That being said, OMNY sees no reason why these subjective requirements would not be met in general if the project also meets the more objective requirements set by the other code requirements provided within this report.
iii) Title 8 Health and Safety (Objective)
Summary
In addition to the subjective requirements in Section 8.24.050, it also provides a few objective restrictions on prohibited acts of noise. In particular 8.24.050.B restricts “radios, phonographs, etc. the using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated between the hours of ten p.m and seven a.m...”
Section 8.24.050.L states
Commercial establishments adjacent to residential property: sustained noise from the premises of any commercial establishment, including any outdoor area part of or under the control of the establishment, between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. shall not be plainly audible at a distance of five feet of any residential dwelling unit;
Omny Acoustics Comments
The time restrictions for live music are only in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. As the CLIENT planned live music of the restaurant is only planned up to 10 p.m., compliance is implied.
It appears any restriction to the live music between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. has been specifically given by the planner reviewing this project, and does not have any specific code basis with which to draw a compliance violation from. It is possible the planner has recognized the lack of an objective metric of compliance between the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and is attempting to provide a requirement based on other similar parts of the code.
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
4 of 12
472
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
2. Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances
i) Title 12 Environmental Protection
Summary
Chapter 12.08 provides several objective measures of noise level compliance. Most pertinent to this project are the exterior noise standards listed in Section 12.08.390, where maximum allowable noise levels are provided for various receptor property zones.
The neighboring residential land uses are restricted to not exceed, for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour, 45 dBA between 10 pm – 7 am, and 50 dBA between 7 am and 10 pm.
In the event that ambient noise levels are measured and found to exceed the noise standards, the measured ambient levels are to become the new exterior noise standard.
Adjustments to the noise standards are based on the time length of the intrusive sounds. For the purposes of this project, Omny Acoustics assumes a relatively constant noise level originating from the project, and therefore will not consider any of the higher, more lenient, noise standards.
Omny Acoustics Comments
Since existing ambient measured levels have been shown to far exceed the noise standard of 50 dBA between 10 pm – 7 am, the exterior noise standards are to be adjusted accordingly. Therefore, the measured existing ambient levels will serve as the new exterior noise standard. Specifically for the time period analyzed within this report, 9 pm – 10 pm, 1 AM Sunday, the new exterior noise standard should be 71 dBA (See Table 1). OMNY has determined the Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Levels due to patio generated noise sources not to exceed 61.1 dBA. Since noise levels from the patio have been shown to be less than existing ambient levels, Omny Acoustics concludes that the project will meet the code requirements set by the Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Title 12 Chapter 12.08. 04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
5 of 12
473
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
C. Ambient Noise Measurements
OMNY has provided short-term noise level measurements outside the nearest residence across the highway and compared these levels with the various code requirements summarized in Section B.
Live music levels are to be strictly stopped at 10PM, and as such, short-term measurements around the time of 10 PM are considered sufficient to analyze the lowest ambient noise levels applicable during the live music performances.
One noise monitoring station was used to measure noise levels outside the residential land use at 23006 Pacific Coast Highway, from 21:00 – 22:00 on 3/25/2019. Details of the measurement circumstances below:
OMNY Personnel: Eric Johnson
Sound Level Meters: (1) Casella-633
Sound Level Calibrator: Casella CEL-120
Measurements at the monitoring station were taken continuously for one hour. The A-weighted L eq levels, and octave-band levels were recorded. Before the measurement period, the sound level meter was calibrated using its respective sound level calibrator.
32 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz 16 kHz dBA 68 73 71 70 67 68 61 51 43 34 71
Table 1: 1-hour Leq levels measured from 21:00 – 22:00 on 3/25/2019. 32 Hz to 16 kHz are the octave band center frequencies, and dBA is the A-weighted Sound Pressure Level. 04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
6 of 12
474
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
D. Noise Impact Model
1. Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Levels
Although the patio music levels are not expected to reach such levels, OMNY has started this analysis with calculations which establish the maximum allowable patio sound pressure levels that would result in levels, as measured five feet from the nearest residential land use, at or below the lowest expected existing ambient noise levels as measured from 21:00 – 22:00 on a weekday evening (See Section C for details on these measurements). As the qualifications for this number are quite long, this level will hereby be referred to simply as the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level and will be defined as the maximum level expected anywhere along the perimeter of the patio.
Assuming the CLIENT keeps patio music levels at or below the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level, OMNY can conclude that music levels played at the patio will not result in levels at the nearest residential area that are “plainly audible within five feet from the residence.” In order to determine the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level, OMNY has constructed a basic outdoor noise propagation model that is based on ISO 9613, an international standard for such calculations. In this model, OMNY only assumes a single sound source in the patio, and basic building reflections and barrier effects. Particular loudspeaker characteristics, or types of music are not required at this point, as this model will represent the absolute Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level; any directivity due to loudspeaker orientation or additional barrier effects from stage setup and layout would only further reduce levels compared to what is modeled here.
Figure 2 shows the birds eye view of the patio and nearest residential area with levels only from the patio noise source itself (i.e. all traffic, or otherwise existing ambient noise sources off). The purpose of this model is to find the maximum levels in the patio that would result in levels, as measured five feet from the nearest residential land use, that match the measured existing ambient noise levels at the quietest expected time period (21:00 – 22:00 on a weekday evening). As can be seen in Figure 2, the noise level five feet from the nearest residential land use (Receiver) is 71 dBA, which matches the 1-hr dBA Leq measurement obtained by OMNY on 3/25/2019 (See Section C for details, and the final column of Table 1 for the actual measured value).
Figure 3 is simply a larger view of the patio in order to show typical levels in the patio area under such circumstances. According to Figure 3, the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level is around 89 dBA. 04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
7 of 12
475
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
8 of 12
Figure 2: Birds eye view of the Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Levels. Five feet from the nearest residential location indicated by the “Nearest Residential” location. Patio centered at “Patio”. 476
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
Figure 3: Closer view of patio, to show general levels within the patio for Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Levels. Patio centered at “Patio” (center) with perimeter walls somewhat visible in white.
2. Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Levels
The previously mentioned Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level of 89 dBA does not consider any directional qualities of the sound system or barriers from patio walls, so it provides a worst case scenario (i.e. music facing directly towards the residential area without any walls or barriers in between). Realistically, the levels in the patio will be much lower for various reasons explained within this section. This section will define what will hereby be referred to as the Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Levels.
The CLIENT has informed OMNY that the patio music will make use of a fixed sound system, in which all loudspeakers will be facing northward away from the residential area next to the pier. The CLIENT has also informed OMNY that all performers are to use the patio’s fixed sound system to reduce any variability with regards to noise levels at the residential areas near the pier. The CLIENT has also expressed the desire to keep music levels at a level higher than typical background music, but not to exceed levels that would inhibit customers from being able to converse.
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
9 of 12
477
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
The directivity of the loudspeakers and barrier effects from the patio walls would allow for even higher Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level, but this will not be necessary to show as levels any higher than 85 dBA or so would severely inhibit customers from being able to converse. According to an Environmental Protection Agency study3, average human voices do not exceed 85 dBA even when shouting. The same study analyzed and classified average sound pressure levels for “shout”, “loud”, “raised””, “normal”, and “casual” vocal efforts. As necessitating shouting between customers would not normally classify as a desirable dining experience, OMNY assumes a maximum vocal effort of “loud”, in which levels would be limited to 73 dBA, to be the maximum levels while maintaining a comfortable dining experience.
In general, speech intelligibility decreases as the background noise levels increase, but people can generally understand enough to have a conversation even when background levels are up to 5 dB above speech levels. As such, patio music levels should not be expected to be above 78 dBA without greatly reducing the ability to converse. OMNY does note that past experience shows that levels in such spaces often range from 80 – 85 dBA, though this does generally inhibit conversations between customers. As a conservative estimate, OMNY will assume levels do not exceed 85 dBA within the general seating area of the patio though notes that this will more commonly be below 80 dBA. Therefore OMNY will define the Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Level not to exceed 85 dBA.
As the Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Level of 85 dBA is less than Maximum Allowable Patio Sound Pressure Level of 89 dBA, OMNY can conservatively conclude that under the normal circumstances discussed within this report, music levels from the CLIENT patio will not be plainly audible as measured five feet from the nearest residential land use.
3 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, “Speech Levels in Various Noise Envornments”, EPA 600/1-77-025, Environmental Health Effects Research Series, May 1977
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
10 of 12
478
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
Figure 4: Birds eye view of the Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Levels. Five feet from the nearest residential location indicated by the “Nearest Residential” location. Patio centered at “Patio”. 04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
11 of 12
479
22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29320
Figure 5: Closer view of patio, to show general levels within the patio for Normally Expected Patio Sound Pressure Levels. Patio centered at “Patio” (center) with perimeter walls somewhat visible in white.
This concludes the noise impact report. Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the content within, please fee free to contact us.
April 2, 2019
Christopher S. Buckley
Acoustical Consultant at Omny Acoustics, LLC
(424) 371-6669
The information contained in this document is intended only for the person(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination, modification, copy or other use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This document is 12 pages long and should not be distributed in any lesser or modified form.
04/02/19 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com
12 of 12
480
481
482
483
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 1.c public comment
From: Teri Sturges
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Item 1.c public comment
As a long time Malibu resident, I oppose this project. The location is dangerous and will encourage too much traffic in that area. Please consider all the ramifications on such a project in Malibu.
Thank you.
484
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel 22959 Pacific Coast Highway Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:27:19 PM
From: Tony Dorn <
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:12 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Inn Motel 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Dear Planning Commission,
I would like to voice my support for the project herein known as the Malibu Inn Motel. The owners have contemplated various uses for the large site and a 20 room motel is certainly the highest and best use for this property. Its proximity to the pedestrian oriented Malibu Pier and Surfrider Beach make a small motel an ideal use and certainly adds a potential bed tax to the City of Malibu coffers.
We do not have a need for any additional retail or office use at this time so this seems like a sensible alternative.
I recognize the retaining wall requires a variance because of its height but this is similar to the retaining walls behind the existing Pacific Coast Highway buildings located at the following addresses:
22601 Pacific Coast Highway a 20,000' retail/office building 22761 Pacific Coast Highway a 30,000' office building
22809 Pacific Coast Highway a 19,000' office building
Additionally this wall will be significantly shielded from line of sight by the building structure.
Our City of Malibu can use additional hotel and motel rooms in order to help meet the demand for Pepperdine parents, visitors to our coastal city, and also for the residents so guests do not always have to stay with them but can take advantage of the many amenities surrounding the subject property.
Tony Dorn
Beitler Commercial Realty Services
Los Angeles,California 90049
direct office
cell
485
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Motel
From: Charlotte Frieze
To: John Mazza <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 2, 2021 3:51 pm
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
As the story poles will not have been up for even a week shouldn't it be postponed until the October meeting? --
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
486
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Ambient Sound Study 2
Attachments: 29354 - 22959 Pacific Coast Highway_report_v2.pdf From: Steven Hakim
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 8:04 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Ambient Sound Study 2
Hope you are doing well.
For any avoidance of doubt, we have conducted another study for the implementation of ambient sound at the proposed motel.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration. Wishing everyone a wonderful holiday weekend ahead as well.
Best,
Steven
Steven Hakim
487
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Client:
Contact:
Phone:
Email:
Address:
Surfrider Plaza, LLC
Steven Hakim
Sep 3, 2021
Subject: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway – Noise Impact Study A. Executive Summary
Omny Acoustics (OMNY) has prepared this noise impact report on behalf of Surfrider Plaza, LLC (CLIENT).
Specifically, this noise impact study is regarding the proposed music to be played at the rooftop terrace area of the motel to be located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway. In particular, OMNY has evaluated the possible noise impacts on three surrounding residential locations. The proposed project location in addition to the three residential locations evaluated are shown in Figure 1.
The Malibu Noise Code depends on the definition of the term “audibility”. Although audibility is dependent on a multitude of factors, it can be generally accepted that if the rooftop generated music levels are found to be at or below existing ambient noise levels, that this would result in levels that are not plainly audible under normal circumstances. Although existing ambient noise levels vary throughout the day, and between weekends and weekdays, OMNY has measured the existing ambient noise levels for 24-hours from Sunday 21:00 to Monday at 21:00 which is expected to include the lowest expected ambient noise period for the location (21:00-02:00 on a Sunday evening). In this way, OMNY is considering the worst case scenario to compare audibility against. By showing levels not to be plainly audible at the residential land uses during this time period, all other noisier time periods (e.g. weekday afternoons, weekend evenings, etc.) can also be determined to be compliant.
Three separate 20-minute measurements were taken at three locations representative of the nearest three residential locations. These measurement locations, and their proximity to the residential locations can also be seen in Figure 1. Due to the cliff between the proposed project location and Residential Location 2, the measurement location remains somewhat far from the actual property line, but so long as noise levels generated by the project at the measurement location do not exceed existing ambient levels it is safe to assume levels at the actual property lines would also remain below existing ambient levels. This is a reasonable assumption due to the unobstructed sound path between the project, existing noise sources like traffic, and the residential property lines. Details regarding the measurements can be found in Section C of this report.
OMNY has provided an outdoor noise propagation model that calculates the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Level that would result in noise levels at the nearest residential land use, to be at or below the existing ambient noise levels. This was done for two distinct time periods (10PM and 2AM) as these represent the latest times within per-defined code compliance defined time periods. The Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels for each period, along with the associated existing ambient noise level is given in Table 1 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 1 of 17
488
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Details on this analysis can be found in Section D.1. Comparisons to code requirements can be found in Section B
Measurement
Location
Existing Ambient Noise
Levels @ 22:00
Levels Due to
Project @ Maximum
Allowable Rooftop
Sound Pressure
Levels Until 22:00
Existing Ambient Noise
Levels @ 02:00
Levels Due to
Project @ Maximum
Allowable Rooftop
Sound Pressure
Levels Until 02:00
1 60.4
(dBA SPL L90-20
Minutes)
53.5 (dBA SPL)
47.0 (dBA SPL L90-20
Minutes)
40.2 (dBA SPL)
2 56.3
(dBA SPL L90-20
Minutes)
56.3 (dBA SPL)
43.0 (dBA SPL L90-20
Minutes)
43.0 (dBA SPL)
Project
Rooftop N/A 80-85
(dBA SPL) N/A 65-70
(dBA SPL)
Table 1: Existing ambient noise levels compared to modeled music levels generated from the project for two timer periods. Details on the assumed loudspeaker configurations and limitations are provided in Section E. Measured existing ambient noise levels based on the L90 20-minute dBA SPL levels measured around these time periods. Details on the measured data given in Section C. dBA SPL is the A-weighted Sound Pressure Level.
In order to maintain music levels that would still allow for conversations between customers, as is the desire of the CLIENT, OMNY has determined that music levels would normally not exceed 73 dBA within the rooftop area.
Details on this analysis can be found in Section D.3. Assuming the CLIENT implements the sound mitigation strategy outlined in Section E, including maintaining maximum rooftop levels due to music as defined in Table 1, OMNY finds that the rooftop music will not be plainly audible as measured five feet from any nearby residential land use considered in this report. As any louder levels would result in difficulty for customers to converse, it would seem in the CLIENT’s best interest to self govern such levels at or below these limits. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 2 of 17
489
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Figure 1 Birds eye view of proposed project location (blue), nearby residential land uses (red), and approximate OMNY ambient noise level measurement positions (green).
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 3 of 17
490
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
B. Code Review
As both the motel at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, and the nearby residential land uses identified in Figure 1, are all within Malibu City limits, the Malibu Municipal Code and General Plan will likely be the most enforceable regulations, but Los Angeles County Code has also been included for thoroughness. The California Building Code, has no regulations that would be applicable to this particular situation, and thus has been omitted from this report.
The following sections summarize and comment on how the given code sections are applicable to this project, and how compliance has been determined. For full code sections, please refer to the code itself.
1. Malibu Municipal Code
i) Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations
Summary
In Chapter 5.04 Section 100.D.1, it states:
Whenever, upon due notice and hearing pursuant to Section 7.10.010, it shall be determined by the city manager or city council that noise from any business activity licensed under this Chapter interferes with the right of persons dwelling in the vicinity of such business activity to the peaceful and quiet use and enjoyment of their property, or that the business activity licensed under this chapter is in violation of the Noise Ordinance of the city, the city manager or city council may require that the premises of the business activity be soundproofed to eliminate the noise or reduce it to a reasonable level. In taking any action under this Section, the city manager or city council shall balance all of the interests of the respective parties, as well as the hardship which will result from any such noise mitigation measures. If the city manager or city council finds that the noise complained of is minimal or inconsequential, no action shall be taken under this section.
Omny Acoustics Comments
OMNY has shown the noise levels at the residential properties to be minimal or inconsequential by comparing the project produced noise levels with existing ambient noise levels. The minimum existing ambient noise levels at each nearby residential location are listed in Table 1. Assuming the CLIENT implements the sound mitigation strategy outlined in Section E, the rooftop produced noise levels are not expected to exceed the minimum existing ambient noise levels at the same locations. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 4 of 17
491
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
ii) Title 8 Health and Safety (Subjective)
Summary
Sections 8.24.040, and 8.24.050 provide various subjective restrictions on noises that are considered “unnecessary, annoying, or unnatural.”
Omny Acoustics Comments
As these subjective requirements are not directly measurable, they are difficult to enforce directly. That being said, OMNY sees no reason why these subjective requirements would not be met in general if the project also meets the more objective requirements set by the other code requirements provided within this report.
iii) Title 8 Health and Safety (Objective)
Summary
In addition to the subjective requirements in Section 8.24.050, it also provides a few objective restrictions on prohibited acts of noise. In particular 8.24.050.B restricts “radios, phonographs, etc. the using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated between the hours of ten p.m and seven a.m...”
Section 8.24.050.L states
Commercial establishments adjacent to residential property: sustained noise from the premises of any commercial establishment, including any outdoor area part of or under the control of the establishment, between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. shall not be plainly audible at a distance of five feet of any residential dwelling unit;
Omny Acoustics Comments
OMNY has shown the noise levels at the residential properties to be not plainly audible by comparing the project produced noise levels with existing ambient noise levels. The minimum existing ambient noise levels at each nearby residential location are listed in Table 1. Assuming the CLIENT implements the sound mitigation strategy outlined in Section E, the rooftop produced noise levels are not expected to exceed the minimum existing ambient noise levels at the same locations. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 5 of 17
492
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
2. Malibu General Plan
Various restrictions on longer-term 24-hour metrics like LDN, and CNEL are given which are irrelevant to the scope of this project which only includes intermittent music levels. More applicable to this project would be the following table, where maximum exterior noise limits are given based on the receiving land use category.
Table 6-4
MAXIMUM EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS NON-TRANSPORTATION SOURCES Receiving Land Use Category General Plan Land Use Districts Time Period Noise Level
dBA
Leq Lmax
Rural All RR Zones and PRF, CR, AH, OS 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55 75 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 65
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 55
Other Residential All SFR, MFR and MFBF Zones 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55 75 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 65
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 60
Commercial, Institutional CN, CC, CV, CG, and I Zones 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 65 85 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60 70
According to the Malibu zoning maps, Residential Locations 2 and 3 lie within the “Rural” category, and thus the project generated noise levels should not exceed 50 dB Leq from 7pm to 10pm and 40 dB Leq from 10pm to 7am. Under conditions such as this project location where existing ambient noise levels exceed the maximum allowable noise limits (measured Leq levels of 50 to 85 dBA being common around 2AM, see Figure 2), it is standard practice to increase the maximum allowable noise limits to the lower bound of the existing ambient noise levels (See Table 1). If such an increase were not permitted, there would be no way to measure or verify compliance as anything below existing ambient noise levels would be unmeasureable. Therefore the argument for compliance given by Section B.1.iii should also apply here, in that the project generated noise levels have been shown not to exceed the lower bound of the existing ambient noise levels and thus meeting the intent of the General Plan’s Maximum Exterior Noise Limits.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 6 of 17
493
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
3. Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances
i) Title 12 Environmental Protection
Summary
Chapter 12.08 provides several objective measures of noise level compliance. Most pertinent to this project are the exterior noise standards listed in Section 12.08.390, where maximum allowable noise levels are provided for various receptor property zones.
The neighboring residential land uses are restricted to not exceed, for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour, 45 dBA between 10 pm – 7 am, and 50 dBA between 7 am and 10 pm.
In the event that ambient noise levels are measured and found to exceed the noise standards, the measured ambient levels are to become the new exterior noise standard.
Adjustments to the noise standards are based on the time length of the intrusive sounds. For the purposes of this project, Omny Acoustics assumes a relatively constant noise level originating from the project, and therefore will not consider any of the higher, more lenient, noise standards.
Omny Acoustics Comments
Assuming the CLIENT implements the sound mitigation strategy outlined in Section E, the rooftop produced noise levels are not expected to exceed 43.0 dBA between the hours of 10pm – 2am (See Table 1). Since noise levels from the rooftop have been shown to be less the maximum 45 dBA requirement, Omny Acoustics concludes that the project will meet the code requirements set by the Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Title 12 Chapter 12.08.
Under conditions such as this project location where existing ambient noise levels exceed the maximum allowable noise limits (measured Leq levels of 50 to 95 dBA being common around 10pm, see Figure 2), it is standard practice to increase the maximum allowable noise limits to the lower bound of the existing ambient noise levels (See Table 1). If such an increase were not permitted, there would be no way to measure or verify compliance as anything below existing ambient noise levels would be unmeasureable.
Therefore the argument for compliance given by Section B.1.iii should also apply here, in that the project generated noise levels have been shown not to exceed the lower bound of the existing ambient noise levels and thus meeting the intent of the Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Title 12 Chapter 12.08. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 7 of 17
494
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
C. Ambient Noise Measurements
OMNY has provided short-term noise level measurements outside the nearby residential locations identified in Figure 1 in addition to 24-hour measurements at Measurement Location 1 and compared these levels with the various code requirements summarized in Section B. The short-term manned measurements were performed from 2021-08-29 20:59:45 – 2021-08-29 22:05:43 and can be seen in Table 1, and the longer-term 24-hour measurements were taken from 2021-08-29 20:41:43 – 2021-08-30 20:58:00 and can be seen in Figure 2.
Details of the measurement circumstances are provided below:
OMNY Personnel: Eric Johnson
Sound Level Meters: (1) Casella-633, (1) REED R8070SD
Sound Level Calibrator: Casella CEL-120
All sound level meters were calibrated using their respective sound level calibrator prior to commencing measurements.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the noise levels reduce dramatically from 22:00 to 02:00 as evening traffic reduces and remain low until around 04:00 when morning traffic starts to pick up again. The focus of these measurements was on the lowest ambient noise levels during normal operation of the motel rooftop music.
According to the CLIENT, music would not normally be played past 02:00, and thus OMNY assumes the lowest ambient noise levels needed to be considered would be around 02:00.
Levels around 02:00 were measured to range from 47-100 dBA SPL. Such a range is not uncommon as shortterm loud noises like ambulences, car horns, and engine noise from quick accelerations away from the nearby traffic light are quite loud, though short-lived. When considering “audibility” with regard to code compliance, these short-term loud noises are of little importance as they will not be covering up lower-level, but more stable noise sources like music on the project rooftop. Therefore, OMNY has also plotted the L90, 20-minute Leq level on Figure 2. L90, which is the level that has been exceeded 90% of the measured time-period (20- minutes in this case), is often used as a means of establishing what the normal background ambient noise level is in the absence of all louder, short-term noise sources. For the sake of a conservative argument with regard to code compliance, OMNY only considers the minimum L90 value around 02:00, which happens to be 47.0 dBA SPL.
Although OMNY was able to perform 24-hour measurements near the Residential Location 1, due to the absence of a secure long-term measurement locations between the project and Residential Location 2, OMNY has employed interpolation between the long and short-term measurement locations to predict the ambient noise levels near Residential Locations 2. These interpolated levels at 02:00 can be found in Table 1. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 8 of 17
495
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Measurement Location Time Period LAEQ L90_20Min
1 21:46:43 - 22:05:43 72.8 60.4
2 20:59:45 - 21:18:45 61.7 56.3
Table 2: Measured 20-min Leq levels taken on 2021-08-29. LAEQ is the Equivalent dBA (A-weighted) Sound Pressure Level. L90 metric over 20-minute sampling periods. L90 represents the level exceeded 90% of the time period (20- minutes).
Figure 2: 24-hour unmanned measurement results taken at measurement Location 1. Equivalent sound pressure levels (Leq) provided with three different time periods in addition to the L90 metric over 20-minute sampling periods. L90 represents the level exceeded 90% of the time period (20-minutes). 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 9 of 17
496
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
D. Noise Impact Model
1. Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels Until 22:00
OMNY has started this analysis with calculations which establish the maximum allowable rooftop sound pressure levels that would result in levels at or below the lowest expected existing ambient noise levels as measured at 22:00 PM on a Sunday evening (See Section C for details on these measurements). As the qualifications for this metric are quite long, this level will hereby be referred to simply as the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Level Until 22:00 and will be defined as the range of levels expected around the rooftop terrace.
Assuming the CLIENT keeps rooftop music levels at or below the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Level Until 22:00, OMNY can conclude that music levels played at the rooftop will not result in levels at the nearest residential area that are “plainly audible within five feet from the residence.” In order to determine the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Level Until 22:00, OMNY has constructed a basic outdoor noise propagation model that is based on ISO 9613, an international standard for such calculations. As the project drawings provided to OMNY do not include final placements for any sound system, OMNY has made a few reasonable assumptions that must be met by the CLIENT design in order for this model to maintain a reasonable accuracy.
In this model, OMNY assumes an array of small speakers evenly placed along the northwest edge of the rooftop terrace. Particular loudspeaker characteristics, or types of music are not required at this point, as this model will represent the absolute Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Level; any directivity due to loudspeaker orientation and layout would only further reduce levels compared to what is modeled here.
Further details on the assumed loudspeaker configuration and use of existing architectural features as sound barriers are given in Section E. Ground elevations were estimated based on the topographical maps provided by the CLIENT on drawing T-1.2 dated 8/14/19.
Figure 4 shows the birds eye view of the rooftop and nearest residential areas with levels only from the rooftop noise sources (i.e. all traffic, or otherwise existing ambient noise sources off). The purpose of this model is to find the maximum levels on the rooftop that would result in levels that match the measured existing ambient noise levels at the quietest expected time period (22:00 on a Sunday evening). As can be seen in Figure 4, the noise level at Measurement Location 2 does not exceed the lower-bound of the 20-minute L90 dBA measurements obtained by OMNY on 8/30/2021 of 56.3 dBA L90 – 20minutes. (See Section C for details, and Figure 2 or Table 1 for the actual measured values). In this way the model has been used to find the maximum allowable rooftop music levels that will not exceed the lowest expected ambient noise levels in the area. 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 10 of 17
497
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Figure 3: Birds eye view of the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels at the rooftop level (approximately
12.1 meters above ground level) at 22:00. Loudspeaker levels are set to identical values as used for the model results in Figure 4.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 11 of 17
498
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Figure 4: Birds eye view of the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels at 1.8 meters from ground level until 22:00. This ground level incorporates an approximation of the local topology according to CLIENT drawing T-1.2.
Rooftop levels increased until minimum ambient levels matched (56.3 dBA at Measurement Location 2). The ground level modeled receivers Measurement Location 1, and 2 are shown 1.8 meters above ground level and represent the same locations measured and reported in Section C.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 12 of 17
499
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
2. Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels
Between 22:00 - 02:00
Assuming the noise mitigation recommendations provided in Section E are followed, OMNY has recalculated the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels using the ambient noise levels measured at 02:00. The results are shown in Figures 5 and 7. Note the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels at this time decrease from 75-85 dBA to 65-70 dBA.
Figure 5: Birds eye view of the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels at the rooftop level (approximately
12.1 meters above ground level) at 02:00. Loudspeaker levels are set to identical values as used for the model results in Figure 6.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 13 of 17
500
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
Figure 6: Birds eye view of the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels at 1.8 meters from ground level from 22:00 to 02:00. This ground level incorporates an approximation of the local topology according to CLIENT drawing T1.2. Rooftop levels increased until minimum ambient levels matched (43 dBA at Measurement Location 2). The ground level modeled receivers Measurement Location 1, and 2 are shown 1.8 meters above ground level and represent the same locations measured and reported in Section C.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 14 of 17
501
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
3. Maximum Desirable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels
OMNY assumes that the rooftop music will make use of a fixed sound system, in which all loudspeakers will be facing southward away from the closest residential area located to the northeast. The CLIENT has expressed the desire to keep music levels from exceeding levels that would inhibit customers from being able to converse.
According to an Environmental Protection Agency study1
, average human voices do not exceed 85 dBA even
when shouting. The same study analyzed and classified average sound pressure levels for “shout”, “loud”, “raised””, “normal”, and “casual” vocal efforts. As necessitating shouting between customers is not assumed to classify as a desirable experience, OMNY assumes a maximum vocal effort of “loud”, in which levels would be limited to 73 dBA, to be the maximum levels while maintaining a comfortable experience.
In general, speech intelligibility decreases as the background noise levels increase. As such, rooftop music levels should not be expected to be above 73 dBA without greatly reducing the ability to converse. Therefore OMNY will define the Maximum Desirable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels not to exceed 73 dBA. 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments”, EPA 600/1-77-025, Environmental Health Effects Research Series, May 1977
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 15 of 17
502
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
E. Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures
Note this is purely for illustrative purposes at this point. Actual drawings should be provided to OMNY for review prior to A/V installation to ensure the configuration meets the assumptions made in this study. The main requirements for the loudspeakers configuration are as follows:
1. The glass guardrail along the northwest, southwest, and northeast perimeter of the rooftop should be a minimum height of 42’’ above its respective rooftop level (roof deck or pool deck). This is the current height as stated in Section drawing A-3.1 dated 2/25/20 by Burge and Associates Architects.
2. This glass guardrail must be continuous along the northwest, southwest, and northeast perimeter of the rooftop as shown in Section drawing A-3.1. No gaps or perforations are allowed within the glass guardrail.
3. Loudspeakers must be placed directly on the roof deck and/or pool deck, with the center of the loudspeaker no higher than 4’’ off the roof or pool deck respectively. No elevated loudspeakers are allowed. The CLIENT expressed one viable option such that the loudspeakers may be located in planters along the roof deck. The approximate locations assumed by OMNY are shown in Figure 7 below along with the location of the glass guardrails used as a sound barrier.
4. An electronic sound limiter must be installed on the fixed sound system to limit levels within the rooftop terrace to below the Maximum Allowable Rooftop Sound Pressure Levels provided in Table 1 (85 dBA until 22:00, and 70 dBA thereafter). 75 dBA SPL. This should be calibrated with the help of OMNY or another qualified acoustical engineer. After calibration this limiter should not be adjusted without the assistance of OMNY or another qualified acoustical engineer.
Figure 7: Birds eye view of proposed rooftop loudspeakers (green) and the glass guard rail (red). 09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 16 of 17
503
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Noise Impact Study
Omny Acoustics Project – 29354
This concludes the noise impact report. Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the content within, please fee free to contact us.
_____________________________________
September 3, 2021
Christopher S. Buckley
Acoustical Consultant at Omny Acoustics, LLC
The information contained in this document is intended only for the person(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination, modification, copy or other use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This document is 17 pages long and should not be distributed in any lesser or modified form.
09/03/21 Omny Acoustics, LLC
Tel: (628) 400-OMNY / www.omnyacoustics.com 17 of 17
504
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) correction From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:36 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Cc: Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Weil <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) correction Dear Patricia,
Thank you - I just noticed i made an error in that the sentence regarding resolution 10-59 should say Thurs -Sat from 7 am to 2 am... not 1 am
My apologies.
Regards,
Stella
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, 05:02:41 PM PDT, Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> wrote:
Received.
Thank you.
Patricia Salazar | Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456-2489 extension 245
Connect with the City of Malibu!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:51 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Cc: Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Weil <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]> Subject: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) 505
2 Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for your time and effort on this matter and all the other matters that come before you.
I write this in hope of bringing your attention to some of my concerns regarding the Malibu Inn changes and the Motel project.
In my review of the latest documents contained in the agenda items link I was surprised to see the Hakim's request for revisions to the conditions of approval. I do not believe it was fair or reasonable for the applicant to request changes the morning of a hearing (before it was known to have been adjourned). Fortunately we were allowed some time to review and respond.
First I would like to point out that the noise study the applicant submitted in support of live entertainment and amplified sound for their motel project was prepared for a CUP hearing to add outdoor music and amplified sound at the the Malibu Inn/Casa Escobar in 2019, which the applicants withdrew in 2019.
Another neighbor and myself had the noise study reviewed by 2 different noise/sound consultants at that time.
Please find attached our noise study review by Steve Rogers Acoustics, who opines that many of the assumptions used by their consultants do not support their study's results. This report and video clips of CUP violations were previously provided to the City for the 2019 hearing.
More importantly I believe it is unreasonable to use the Noise Study for the Malibu Inn for the motel project next door, will be much larger and higher in scale, with an outdoor top deck, and as such a proper noise study cannot be evaluated until after it is built. In any event the attached study does point out that noise, amplified music, live bands etc from across the street will greatly affect the residents in the immediate area.
In particular, the CUP for the Malibu Inn/Casa Escobar now Aviator Nation was debated at length when the CUP was originally issued, and those restrictions were provided in response to years of excessive noise and other problems with prior owners of the Malibu Inn.
In addition, the Hakims and their subsequent tenant Casa Escobar both often violated the CUP conditions regarding hours, noise, live entertainment and amplified music since that establishment opened for business. There was and is no justification to expand their CUP or approve live entertainment and amplified music for a motel while it is in its planning stages. As history has shown, the owners and operators of the Malibu Inn have continuously violated the conditions of their CUP and have acted as "bad neighbours" to the residential property owners in the immediate vicinity for years and unfortunately we believe will do so again.
506
3 Also, resolution 21-64 misstates the approved operating hours for the Malibu Inn now Aviator Nation. Section 4 A and C states that the existing restaurant will continue to operate from 7 am to 2 am daily. Pursuant to Resolution 10-59 section 16, the approved hours of operation. are 7 am to 12 am Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thurs-Sat from 7 am to 1 am, except Sundays when the following Monday is a holiday.
I request that the Staff correct paragraphs 4 A and C of the resolution in advance of the hearing to reflect the approved restaurant hours in the actual CUP.
Also the current hearing to amend CUP 09-009 is only to reduce the number of parking spaces and decrease the restaurant size. I would think that any other requests to change any of the conditions in the CUP should be formally done as required by the City.
Applicants state that since the restaurant space will be decreased they will need less parking for patrons, but Aviator Nation wants to host large events, concerts etc - where will all their employees and guests park? I think Aviator Nation will require more parking for all their guests, not less.
In addition I would like some clarity on what will happen if both Aviator Nation and the motel want to have large events on the same day or night.
I understand that applicants want to make use of their property but I am not convinced they are going about it in a way that is practical, reasonable or safe for the residents, community and visitors driving on PCH which is already extremely congested on the weekends and virtually every day in the summer months.
I ask the Commission to please take a little more time to evaluate the pros and cons of this project, to make sure the parking changes are realistic and to condition the development permit and CUP for the motel project to make sure it meets the needs of the entire Malibu community and the visitors to Malibu.
Thank you,
Stella Yap
Resident
507
2355 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: 310.234.0939 rogersacoustics.com Steve Rogers Acoustics
Casa Escobar Malibu, 22969 Pacific Coast Highway
Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio
Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study
October 21, 2018
Prepared for:
Stella Yap & Robert Allan
Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
By:
Steve Rogers Acoustics, LLC
Steve Rogers
Principal
508
22969 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio October 21, 2019 Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study Page 1 of 5
1. Executive Summary
On behalf of their client - SKA Group, LLC - Omny Acoustics has prepared a Noise Impact Report (dated April 2, 2019) to address proposed live music performances on the outdoor patio at Casa Escobar Malibu (22969 Pacific Coast Highway). The Omny report intends to confirm that live music on the patio would not be plainly audible within five feet of the nearby homes and that this proposed use would therefore comply with restrictions imposed by City of Malibu Planning staff.
Steve Rogers Acoustics, LLC (SRA) has been retained to review Omny’s report. We conclude that the Omny study does not prove that live music performances on the outdoor patio at Casa Escobar will be inaudible at the closest residential uses.
In fact, we believe that Omny’s findings only serve to underscore just how clearly audible these outdoor performances would be at the neighboring homes. Specifically, we find that:
• The acoustical metric Omny has selected as the basis for their study is too simplistic and lacks the detail necessary to demonstrate inaudibility. • Omny’s assumption that “average” traffic noise level at the neighboring homes would be sufficient to effectively mask music sounds from the patio is faulty because it does not reflect the very intermittent flow of traffic on this section of PCH. • The Omny methodology overlooks important contrasts between the character of amplified music and that of traffic noise, which would promote audibility of music sound emissions from the patio, even at times when the dBA level of traffic noise exceeds that of the music.
• Omny’s analysis relies on the assumption that music levels on the patio would be limited to a suitably low level, but provides no details on how this limit would be enforced in practice.
• The Omny report includes seemingly unrealistic assumptions about the directivity and orientation of the various music sound sources and unexplained inconsistency between the “maximum allowable” and “normally expected” music level scenarios.
2. Equivalent Sound Level - Inappropriate Metric to Evaluate Music Audibility Omny’s report correctly states that “audibility is dependent on a multitude of factors” (1).
However, in evaluating the audibility of music on the patio, Omny has based its entire analysis on a single acoustical metric called “Equivalent Sound Level”, or Leq, which is a way of averaging noise levels over a period of time (2).
To establish environmental context, Omny measured ambient noise levels adjacent at a distance of 5-feet from the home at 23006 Pacific Coast Highway, and report a noise level of 71 dBA (Leq, 1-hour) for the period 9PM to 10PM on a typical weekday. While SRA has not _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 2
2 - Leq is an energy-average of noise levels over a stated period of time and is used in environmental noise studies as a convenient way to quantify time-varying noise.
509
22969 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio October 21, 2019 Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study Page 2 of 5 made ambient noise levels in this exact location, we note that the 71 dBA, (Leq, 1-hour) noise level Omny reports is consistent with our experience of this section of PCH.
The Omny study argues that if the Leq of music performances on the Casa Escobar patio is “at or below” the of the ambient noise Leq of 71 dBA (3) at the neighboring homes then the music performances on the patio will be inaudible at the neighboring properties.
This assertion is not true because, while Leq is a useful metric for many environmental noise impact studies, it is too simplistic a tool to properly evaluate audibility, especially in a situation where the ambient noise level varies significantly with time - which is certainly the case with traffic on this portion of PCH.
So, when Omny’s model predicts a worst-case music level of 71 dBA, Leq received at the closest residence, this in no way confirms that the music will be inaudible at that location.
Figure 1 illustrates this point by showing how sound levels produced by a typical live music performance compare to the ebb and flow PCH traffic noise (4) over a period of ten minutes.
Figure 1: How Live Music and Traffic Noise Levels Vary with Time The overall Leqs of the music (red line) and the PCH traffic noise (blue line) in Figure 1 are the same - 71 dBA, per the “maximum allowable” music level predictions and ambient noise levels in the Omny report - but the relationship between the two lines varies enormously from one minute to the next.
___________________________________________________
3 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 2
4 - from previous measurements made by SRA on this section of PCH 40 50
60 70
80 90
0 2 4 6 8 10
Noise Level (dBA)
Time (minutes)
Amplified Music (71 dBA, Leq 10-min)
PCH Traffic (71 dBA, Leq 10-min)
510
22969 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio October 21, 2019 Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study Page 3 of 5 The peaks in the blue line represent those periods (generally around 1-minute duration) when traffic on PCH is flowing freely. At these times, the overall dBA noise level produced by the traffic is generally the same, or higher, than the music level so that traffic noise would help mask the music from the patio, perhaps even “drown it out” completely during particularly noise vehicle passbys.
However, between the peaks there are lulls in the traffic noise - for example due to activation of the pedestrian crossing at Malibu Pier, or other traffic signals elsewhere on PCH. During these periods (again, approximately 1-minute each), traffic noise levels are much lower (45 - 55 dBA) and would provide no masking of the music from the patio.
3. Character of Music is Distinct from Traffic Noise
The character of amplified music is very different than that of traffic noise. The contrasts between the two types of sound combine to greatly increase the audibility of music, even at times when the dBA level of traffic noise exceeds that of the music. And yet none of these important audibility factors is addressed in Omny’s report.
One basic contrast is that amplified music contains a different mix of frequencies than traffic noise. There is a strong low-frequency (bass) component in live music that is not present in the noise produced by traffic flows on this section of PCH. Live music also often has high-frequency content (produced by keyboards, cymbals, hi-hat, percussion, etc.) that is not present in traffic noise. Figure 2 illustrates this:
Figure 2: Live Music versus Traffic Noise Frequency Spectra 40 50
60 70
80 90
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
Sound Pressure Level (dB)
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Amplified Music (71 dBA)
PCH Traffic (71 dBA)
511
22969 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio October 21, 2019 Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study Page 4 of 5 The dBA levels of the live music (5) and traffic noise (6) shown in Figure 2 are the same, but the frequency content is quite clearly different. This contrast allows the listener to more easily distinguish between the two types of sound, thereby making the music more audible.
Frequency content is not the only way that the unique character of music enhances audibility. The following features also help music catch the listener’s attention, making musical sounds still more distinct from ambient noise - and therefore more audible:
NOTES
Musical notes - often categorized as “Pure Tones” - are perceived as being louder than broadband noise of the same dB level. This is why so many local noise ordinances place more stringent limits on noise containing pure tones.
RHYTHMN / BEAT
Impulsive sounds - such as drum hits, percussive bass notes - at regular intervals help music stand out from the ambient noise, making it more audible.
LYRICS Listeners’ ears are drawn to the “information” contained in song lyrics, thereby increasing the audibility and intelligibility of the music.
4. Other Anomalies in the Omny Report
a) No Guarantee that Music Sound Levels on the Patio will be Limited Omny’s analysis is based on the assumption that their client will control the operations in such a way as to maintain: “…music levels at or below 89 dBA in the patio area…” (7) This assumption is very problematic because it is common for live music venues to operate their sound systems at levels significantly higher than 89 dBA. In addition, the Omny report offers no plan for how the music levels would be limited. In reality, the sound level on the patio will be determined by the performers and/or the sound engineer operating the mixing desk on a particular night. This protocol offers absolutely no assurance that music levels on the patio will not exceed 89 dBA. b) Loudspeaker Orientation/Directivity
The Omny study has modeled live music performance on the patio of Casa Escobar as a simple point-source located at the center of the patio. The report implies that this approach is conservative, because it does not take loudspeaker orientation/directivity into account. The report states:
“… the patio will make use of a fixed sound system, in which all loudspeakers will be facing northward away from the residential area next to the pier. The CLIENT has also informed OMNY that all performers are to use the patio’s fixed sound system to reduce any variability with regards to noise levels at the residential area near the pier.” (8) ___________________________________________________________ 5 - from previous measurements made by SRA during live music performances 6 - from the table on page 6 of the Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019 7 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 9
8 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 2
512
22969 Pacific Coast Highway - Proposed Live Music on the Outdoor Patio October 21, 2019 Review of Omny Acoustics Noise Impact Study Page 5 of 5 This statement appears to be at odds with the layout of the Casa Escobar property, in which the stage is located at the north end of the patio, facing south - towards the homes adjacent to the pier. It also does not address the customary stage set-up at small venues, which will usually include an acoustic drum kit as well as “backline” amplifiers for the guitar and bass (usually furnished by the performers themselves), facing towards the audience - i.e. facing south in this case, towards the homes adjacent to the pier.
The applicant’s proposals for the configuration of the patio sound system, and control of noise emissions from drums and backline amplifiers, require much more detailed and thorough explanation. In particular, it would be helpful to know if the Applicant is aware of any existing outdoor music venue where a “reverse-orientation” sound system of the type mentioned in the Omny report is already in use. c) “Maximum Allowable” versus “Normally Expected” Music Levels The Omny report presents two scenarios for live music on the patio.
In the first scenario, music levels on the patio would be 89 dBA, resulting in a level of music at the nearest residential use of 71 dBA. Omny refers to a music level of 89 dBA as the “maximum allowable” (9) music level on the patio - a characterization that we strongly disagree with for all of the reasons detailed in the preceding paragraphs of this report.
In the second scenario, Omny states that music levels “would not normally exceed 85 dBA within the patio area” (10)
. In other words, Omny expects music levels would
normally be 4 dBA lower than the “maximum allowable” level of 89 dBA. However, according to the output of the Omny model, “normal” music levels received at the nearest residential use would be almost 10 dBA lowerthan those under “maximum allowable” conditions (61.1 dBA versus 71 dBA)(11).
The Omny report does not explain how a 4 dBA reduction in patio music levels would result in an almost 10 dBA reduction in music levels received at the nearest home. ________________________________________
9 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 7
10 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 2
11 - Omny Noise Impact Study, April 2, 2019, Page 11
513
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 4D hotel and parking lot
From: Mark Wallace
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4D hotel and parking lot
I am disgusted that this project is being considered after the developers ignored the prerequisite of representative story poles to allow residents and interested parties to observe the impact of this proposed development. For the planning commission to allow this project to be considered without effective public observation is unconscionable and absolutely unacceptable. It’s also unfair to residential builders and rebuilders that are required to place truly representative story poles and public notices…. Especially in such a critical location!!! The planning commission should be ashamed to allow this project to proceed after this suspicious and dubious beginning. It smacks of corruption and conspiracy. Please delay this projects progress until such time as the developers show proper respect and good faith to our community as is required by normal families that seek permits. To do otherwise is proof that the planning commission is merely a corrupt tool of wealthy commercial developers. Mark Wallace and family.
Realtor, Developer,
LA City Fire Captain
And Lifelong Malibu Resident
514
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 4D “motel” and 4C change in Malibu Inn Parking From: Ali Mills
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 10:26 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4D “motel” and 4C change in Malibu Inn Parking This message is in response to the proposed hotel on PCH and the changes it will inflict on an already overcrowded, hazardous stretch of Malibu. I am opposed to this project and all related projects involving the construction of a motel on PCH.
The story poles that have gone up don’t even represent a 1/4 of the developers own rendering of the property. Stop allowing developers to lie and cheat their way into extorting big money from our city.
Malibu’s infrastructure cannot handle another influx of tourists in what is an already crammed, central Malibu bottleneck. The vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic alone makes one wonder how much longer this city will even last in its current shape.
We have so many other problems on our plate as a city, please redirect resources that focus on our own citizens first, before worrying about where to house vacationers!
Sincerely,
Allison Mills
515
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: 22959 PCH / Malibu Inn Motel
From: Emma Crowther
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Subject: 22959 PCH / Malibu Inn Motel
Hi Adrian and Richard,
Hope you are well and had a lovely Summer.
Please excuse my ignorance in maybe not emailing the correct people for this. If you could redirect me if so, that would be great.
I am writing, regarding 22959 PCH proposed development (Malibu Inn Motel), as I was told this morning that strings which show the proposed structure were only put up on the site on Saturday, 4 days ahead of the subject Planning meeting and after it was originally scheduled for. Given most Malibu residents either travel on Labor Day Weekend or stay inside to avoid holiday traffic, this leaves one day for the public to digest and make comments IF they happen to drive that way today. It is my very very limited understanding that these are meant to be up for the duration of the planning application process.
That said, it would be great if people were given more time now that they are up, to be able to have an opportunity to look into and weigh in on such, and understand the scale / impact etc. I would also assume this will help to avoid lawsuits after the fact too, if the correct process and procedures to allow public to weigh in are / were not followed? I also wanted to check in regarding a recent Malibu Times article that implies this project has no changes or variances and in doing so, along with the story poles missing above, says it’s basically already been approved / no big deal / don't bother looking into this. I’m not a planner or anything along the lines but to me it seems like there are in actuality many significant variances (cutting into a mountain side? huge retaining walls? Underground parking? Etc) in the proposed. "Since no major zoning changes or variances are being requested, any yes vote by the Planning Commission’s cannot be appealed to the city council. A no vote, however, can be appealed by the applicants."
These two things combined are incredibly misleading and, to be honest, starting to feel like something a little shady is going on...
I am sure I speak for many residents, who, because of the above, have no idea what’s going on here and would very much like the opportunity and time to at least look into such for themselves.
If not possible to allow more time, can you please put this on record (that the correct process was not followed) for when issues come up down the track (or advise me how to?)
Thank you very much,
Emma Crowther
516
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) Attachments: SRA Report (22969 PCH) 10-21-19 FINAL.pdf
From: Mark Dempster
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:13 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Cc: Kim Dempster ICE <[email protected]>; David Weil <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Fw: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) Dear Planning Commission,
We are the residential owners at located across the street from Aviator Nation and next to the Malibu Pier.
We support 1) a hotel project, but 2) one which follows a thorough and proper process to address the noise, crowd and traffic ordinance issues as outlined by Stella Yap.
Please also note that the story polls first appeared just prior to this Labor Day weekend.
Thank you for your time and efforts on this matter.
Mark+Kim.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From:
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Cc: Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; David Weil <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021, 04:51:03 PM PDT
Subject: Sept 8 Hearing Items 4C and 4D. (Malibu Inn Parking/Motel Project) Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for your time and effort on this matter and all the other matters that come before you.
I write this in hope of bringing your attention to some of my concerns regarding the Malibu Inn changes and the Motel project.
In my review of the latest documents contained in the agenda items link I was surprised to see the Hakim's request for revisions to the conditions of approval. I do not believe it was fair or reasonable for the applicant to request changes the morning of a hearing (before it was known to have been adjourned). Fortunately we were allowed some time to review and respond.
First I would like to point out that the noise study the applicant submitted in support of live entertainment and amplified sound for their motel project was prepared for a CUP hearing to add outdoor music and amplified sound at the the Malibu Inn/Casa Escobar in 2019, which the applicants withdrew in 2019.
Another neighbor and myself had the noise study reviewed by 2 different noise/sound consultants at that time. 517
2 Please find attached our noise study review by Steve Rogers Acoustics, who opines that many of the assumptions used by their consultants do not support their study's results. This report and video clips of CUP violations were previously provided to the City for the 2019 hearing.
More importantly I believe it is unreasonable to use the Noise Study for the Malibu Inn for the motel project next door, will be much larger and higher in scale, with an outdoor top deck, and as such a proper noise study cannot be evaluated until after it is built. In any event the attached study does point out that noise, amplified music, live bands etc from across the street will greatly affect the residents in the immediate area.
In particular, the CUP for the Malibu Inn/Casa Escobar now Aviator Nation was debated at length when the CUP was originally issued, and those restrictions were provided in response to years of excessive noise and other problems with prior owners of the Malibu Inn.
In addition, the Hakims and their subsequent tenant Casa Escobar both often violated the CUP conditions regarding hours, noise, live entertainment and amplified music since that establishment opened for business. There was and is no justification to expand their CUP or approve live entertainment and amplified music for a motel while it is in its planning stages. As history has shown, the owners and operators of the Malibu Inn have continuously violated the conditions of their CUP and have acted as "bad neighbours" to the residential property owners in the immediate vicinity for years and unfortunately we believe will do so again.
Also, resolution 21-64 misstates the approved operating hours for the Malibu Inn now Aviator Nation. Section 4 A and C states that the existing restaurant will continue to operate from 7 am to 2 am daily. Pursuant to Resolution 10-59 section 16, the approved hours of operation. are 7 am to 12 am Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thurs-Sat from 7 am to 1 am, except Sundays when the following Monday is a holiday.
I request that the Staff correct paragraphs 4 A and C of the resolution in advance of the hearing to reflect the approved restaurant hours in the actual CUP.
Also the current hearing to amend CUP 09-009 is only to reduce the number of parking spaces and decrease the restaurant size. I would think that any other requests to change any of the conditions in the CUP should be formally done as required by the City.
Applicants state that since the restaurant space will be decreased they will need less parking for patrons, but Aviator Nation wants to host large events, concerts etc - where will all their employees and guests park? I think Aviator Nation will require more parking for all their guests, not less.
In addition I would like some clarity on what will happen if both Aviator Nation and the motel want to have large events on the same day or night.
I understand that applicants want to make use of their property but I am not convinced they are going about it in a way that is practical, reasonable or safe for the residents, community and visitors driving on PCH which is already extremely congested on the weekends and virtually every day in the summer months.
I ask the Commission to please take a little more time to evaluate the pros and cons of this project, to make sure the parking changes are realistic and to condition the development permit and CUP for the motel project to make sure it meets the needs of the entire Malibu community and the visitors to Malibu.
Thank you,
Stella Yap
Resident
‐‐
Mark Dempster
518
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Item 4D “Motel”
From: Christin Ayotte
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4D “Motel”
Hello,
I am a 30 year resident and home owner in Malibu. It has come to my attention there are possible plans to approve yet another motel in Malibu. This time across from the Malibu pier. I am shocked and against the build of this motel.
Firstly, the plans are to build it on a slope side that has historically been unstable, particularly during and after rains. It also will be contributing negatively to the environment as well as increasing already crowded traffic conditions and safety. issues.
I am vehemently against the building of this project and do not believe the story poles that only recently been put up several days ago, accurately reflect the size and scope of this build.
Thank you,
Christin Ayotte ‐ Ogle
Sent from my iPhone
519
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Item 4 D Malibu Inn Motel
From: Georgia Goldfarb, MD
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:42 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4 D Malibu Inn Motel
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to require that the story poles be placed in an accurate representation of the heights and boundaries for the course of the review including a MINIMUM of two to three weeks before this project comes before the planning commission.
It is unreasonable to think that placing the poles essentially on a holiday weekend followed by a Jewish holiday, the public will have an opportunity to visit the site and assess the project.
I am not clear what the rationale was for the circuitous logic allowing this project to skirt the requirements, but it is precisely that type of action that causes people to lose faith in/disbelieve government. Staff should not be making this kind of decision. It makes one wonder for whom the staff is working.
Please postpone hearing this project until the poles have been up for at least two to three weeks to allow adequate assessment of this project.
Thank you,
Georgia Goldfarb
520
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 4D - Malibú Inn Motel
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:08 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Colin Drummond ; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Subject: Item 4D ‐ Malibú Inn Motel
Honorable Planning Commission,
We requested that this item be continued until proper time for story poles to be placed. I traveled to the chili cookoff for locals night on Friday and still did not see them before heading off this week for a Labor Day holiday. Apparently the story poles were put up finally the last two days but I have yet to see them being away and it should be at least 10 days before a hearing that the poles should be up. As I understand it they are also not at the correct heights. It is a visually impactful area of Malibú and story poles are indeed necessary.
The project should not be allowed as OWTS are banned in the area and the former project (applied for one day before the ban!) was for commercial retail space not a motel that requires much more water usage and the application changed almost 9 years after the ban was put in place. The slope would be impacted negatively by this excess water usage and the variance should not be approved. The parking needs in the busiest area of Malibú far outweigh the risks of such a project. The staff report states that a variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands. It IS currently used for beach and pier parking in the most highly needed part of Malibú with the highest traffic. The non‐exempt grading and massive subterranean grading would also be structurally a big risk with the wastewater ban. Worse case the project should be continued until 2028 if and when it can connect to a sewer system.
The structure also is WAY too tall. The elevator shaft alone from just the first floor perimeter wall is over 30ft high and from the ground floor elevation is over 44ft high. We have noticed the planning dept has tried to misnomer perimeter walls when height should be taken from the lowest height of the lowest perimeter wall that daylights. The retaining wall over 46ft high must be trying to compensate for all of these violations but cannot be it’s own violation through building and altering the hillside massively and put the entire project at risk. The stacked parking is also not viable during evacuation procedures.
Given the impact of the potential huge amount of wastewater (that is currently banned) an Environmental review for the significant impacts to the geology with the landform alteration of the site and surrounding property should be addressed. Just because almost 12000 cu ft of grading into the toe of the slope is exempt does not mean it is not altering the slope and landscape which it drastically is. The Project as it is currently has NOT been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA which the staff report falsely states it has been and therefore can result in significant adverse impacts, will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare. This project also 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 approximate water usage of 4056 gpd for 229 fixture units is grossly under represented. One home across the street from our house in big rock that is attempting to increase fixtures from 34 to 55 units currently uses an average of almost half of this at 1800 gpd so this figure would likely be at least 9‐10 times that number given the number of guests & staff using the facilities. Even if uses at minimum a 1/3 of that usage it would still be over 10000 gpd but a motel would use much more water than the average of 8‐10+ households. This WOULD result in a seepage of groundwater pollutants into the ocean. Laundry should be done offsite for certain.
521
2 The granting of the variance WILL constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner as no other project nearby has dug into the slope as this one proposes with its 229 fixture units on top of this. The slope stability & seismic stability report results should be given in the staff report addressing the geology concerns with this added water to the adjacent slope.
The slope analysis also seems to be incorrect as a majority of the slope is likely 1:1 and should be recalculated or reevaluated. The company that completed the analysis is under investigation with the Board of Geotechnical Engineers for another slope stability analysis for a bluff top construction in big rock that found enough evidence to require an investigation into the analysis that is alleged to be incorrect for similar reasons.
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.
Based on all of these LCP code violations the project should not go forward.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter for the sake of all of the Malibú residents in your hands.
Jo & Colin Drummond
522
22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY.
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
MALIBU INN MOTEL
EXHIBIT #1
MOTEL - A facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public in a group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land, does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms, and not otherwise open to the public. (City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan)
SUBMITTED BY JOSEPH LEZAMA
523
17 18 19 20 21 22
5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4
23 24 25 26 27
5 6 7 8 9
4 13 14 15 16
1 2 3
28 29
11 12
12 13
10 11
15 16
17 14
18 20'
20'
20'
9' 9' 9' 2' 9' 9' 10'-1/4"
58'-11 1/2"
5'-0" MIN. CLR.
4'-0" MIN. CLR.
4'-0" MIN. CLR.
18'
18'
104'-1"
38'-6 3/4"
28'
5'
17'-1 3/4"
69'-2" FRONT YARD SET-BACK
3'-5 1/2"
3'-5"
3'-7"
3'-7"
17'-7 1/2"
28' 17'-1 3/4"
7'-4 1/4"
8'-5 1/2"
9'
9' 8'-5" 9'
8'
5'
18'-6"
R 18'
R 46'
R 18'
TRENCH
DRAIN
8"
CMU
PALM
±30"
PLANTER
12" CMU
ST
LIGHT
ST
LIGHT
FIRE
HYDRANT
T.W. +71'
LINE OF
FIRE DEPT.
300 FT MAX
PATH (ABOVE)
LINE OF
FIRE DEPT.
300 FT. MAX
PATH
(ABOVE)
WATER FLOW
EQUIP. AREA
30"
PLANTER WALL
PACKED
DIRT
MAX 6'
HIGH WALL
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTER
WALKING ACCESS
(E) 6 X 4 X 2.5"
FIRE HYDRANT
CURB
SLOPING
WALL
SLOPING
WALL
SLOPING WALL
ALONG GRADE
SLOPING
WALL
OH
CONC
SWALE
CONC
SWALE
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTER
WALKING ACCESS
OH
PARKING
TURN
AROUND
AREA
GB
GB GB GB
GB
GB
GB
GB GB
GB
GB
FL
FL FL FL FL WIF
TILE
CONC
CONC
436.07'
N48°30'10"E (B.O.B.)
FOUND L&T
7.4' PROD.
FOUND LEAD
7.3' PROD.
1 STORY
STUCCO
BUILDING
(22941 PCH)
A/C
A/C
CONC
CONC
DN
X
CONC SWALE
A.P.N. 4452-017-008
A.P.N. 4452-017-008
N57°33'55"E
199.92'
N32°26'05"W
N32°26'05"W
240.00'
150.00'
N62°50'36"E
231.69'
N24°50'30"W
240.00'
27.00' 4 8 °
= 0 4 0 ' D 3 . 0 = 1 7 L ' 4 1 " R
30" TEST PIT
4X6"
FOUND 3/4" IP OPEN
30 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
110
110
120
120
130
140
150
FOG STRIP
VAULT
TS VAULT
ED VAULT
SIGN
POST
ED VAULT
0.9' VENT
2.75' MH
0.9' VENT EL VAULT
GTE VAULT
0.4' POST
DECK
DECK
FS 22.37'
FS 22.01'
FS 21.78'
21.61'
21.98'
22.45'
BT X 21.61'
TP X 22.16'
FL 21.52'
21.68'
BK X 22.36'
TC 21.75'
FL 21.10' 21.27'
20.86'
TC 21.43'
FL 20.79'
21.67'
TP X 21.24'
FL 20.57'
20.73' BT X 20.55'
BT X 20.48'
TP X 21.07'
FL 20.48' 20.62'
BK X 21.15'
BT X 20.37'
TP X 20.96'
20.46' FL 20.32'
21.90'
22.71'
22.39'
.
27.88' 28.7'
26.44'
42.03'
47.63'
47.63'
FS 50.00'
47.79'
44.96'
47.89' 48.08'
FS 49.97'
50.31'
59.64'
50.32'
58.8'
55.8'
59.37'
59.81'
TSTP 59.56'
54.0' @ X
BSTP 50.27' 50.27'
52.83'
50.83'
50.07'
49.48'
21.91'
FS 21.48'
29.92'
29.66'
FL 29.60'
29.89'
29.50'
29.58'
29.61'
24.56'
CONC GUTTER
93.0'
93.2'
81.0'
79.5'
75.0'
71.4'
68.0'
63.9'
61.5'
61.6'
63.1'
57.5'
73.5'
98.0'
93.9'
83.6'
72.5'
78.8'
69.9'
147.9'
129.1' 129.1'
104.7'
129.75'
123.0'
101.3'
87.8'
98.4'
109.3'
60'
10 0'
CL
5' EASEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1944 IN
BOOK 21117, PAGE 357 PER ITEM #8.
1.7' (ENCR.)
2.1' (ENCR.)
2.1' (CLR.)
0.8' (CLR.)
0.8' (CLR.)
ON LINE
SET 1"X2"
SET ƒ" IP
PLS 6847
100
90 PREVIOUSLY SET
ƒ" IP PLS 6847
(10.0' FROM
PROP. COR.)
N62°50'36"E 231.69'
N24°50'30"W 240.00'
N32°26'05"W
240.00'
35'-7" REAR YARD SETBACK ( 15%)
LOT WIDTH = 215'-10"
LOT DEPTH = 237'-2"
UP
UP
UP
UP
20 200.00'
150.00'
N 32 26'
05" W
S 57 33'
55" W
199.92'
2-WAYS ALTERNATES
CONTROLLED
ACCESS RAMP
RAMP
UP
60 50
40 1.5:1 SLOPE
1.5:1
SLOPE
70 (C)
(C)
(C)
VAN
7 SLOPE
ADA
ADA
RAMP
ADA ADA
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
PA
(C)
Pacific Coast Highway
( PUBLIC HIGHWAY )
SLOPE
2.0%
CONC. WALK
1%
2.0%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
FIRE DEPT 15 ft.
SETBACK
TRASH
AREA
ELEV
6 5
4 3
2 1
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23
DEBRIS
PROTECTION
(PER GEOLOGY)
SLOPE
2.0%
CONC. WALK
1%
1%
2.0%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
19 20
DEBRIS
PROTECTION
(PER GEOLOGY)
VAN
6"
CURB
RIGHT
TURN ONLY
& STOP
SIGNS
ADA
PARKING
SIGN
ADA
PARKING
ADA SIGN
PARKING
SIGN
PROPOSED
WIDER DRIVEWAY
APPROACH
REMOVE
(E) DRIVEWAY
APPROACH
ACCESIBLE
ACCESS
AISLE
LOBBY
15' x 19'
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
STOR /
GEN
8' x 21'
FD 5 FT. MIN.
UP
24' ADA
RAMP
UP
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
TYP 8' x 16'
COMPACT
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
3090
EXIT
(2) 5090
PKT SLDR
PA
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
PA
PA VALET STACK
#1
V-S #2
V-S #3 V-S #4 V-S #5 V-S #6 V-S #7 V-S #8
V-S #9
V-S #10
UP
(TO 2ND
FLOOR)
PA
EXIT
VALET
#1
VALET
#2
VALET
#3
VALET
#4
VALET
#5
VALET
#6
VALET
#7
UP
(TO 2ND
FLOOR)
9' x 20'
STALL
PA
PA
PA
UP
TYP 8' x 16'
COMPACT
STALL
TYP 8' x 16'
COMPACT
STALL
TYP 8' x 16'
COMPACT
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
9' x 18'
9' x 18'
9' x 18'
TYP 8' x 16'
COMPACT
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
TYP 9' x 20'
STALL TYP 9' x 20'
STALL
MOTEL
PARKING SHARED MOTEL & VALET
RESTAURANT
PARKING
VALET
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
VALET
PARKING
VALET
PARKING VALET
PARKING
VALET
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL
PARKING
MOTEL MOTEL PARKING PARKING
V-S #11 V-S #12 V-S #13 V-S #15 V-S #14 V-S #16 V-S #17 V-S #18 V-S #19 V-S #20 V-S #21 V-S #22 VALET
#7
VALET
#9
VALET
#10
VALET
#11
VALET
#12
VALET
#13
VALET
#1A
VALET
#2A
VALET
#3A
VALET
#3A
VALET
#4A
VALET
#5A
VALET
#6A
7 1%
6 5
4 3
2 1
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23
1%
1%
19 20
VALET STACK
#1
V-S #2
V-S #3 V-S #4 V-S #5 V-S #6 V-S #7 V-S #8
V-S #9
V-S #10
VALET
#1
VALET
#2
VALET
#3
VALET
#4
VALET
#5
VALET
#6
VALET
#7
V-S #11 V-S #12 V-S #13 V-S #15 V-S #14 V-S #16 V-S #17 V-S #18 V-S #19 V-S #20 V-S #21 V-S #22 VALET
#7
VALET
#9
VALET
#10
VALET
#11
VALET
#12
VALET
#13
VALET
#1A
VALET
#2A
VALET
#3A
VALET
#3A
VALET
#4A
VALET
#5A
VALET
#6A
22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY.
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
MALIBU INN MOTEL
EXHIBIT #2
PROPOSED PARKING W/ VALET & STACK SYSTEM
PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE MOTEL @ 22959 PCH : 23 SPACES (20 ROOMS 1 PARKING SPACE /ROOM, 20 PARKING SPACES REQ. + 3 MOTEL EMPLOYEES, 3 PARKING SPACES REQ.)
CARRY-OVER PARKING SPACE REQUIRED FROM 22969 PCH = (47 - 23 ) = 24 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED -> 47 SPACES
• EXISTING PARKING FOR 22969 PCH MALIBU INN RESTAURANT
EXISTING RESTAURANT 1.935 SQ FT SERVICE AREA , 1 SPACE PER 50 SQ FT SERVICE AREA, PARKING REQUIREMENTS = 39 SPACES.
EXISTING RETAIL 1,636 SQ. FT. GROSS FLOOR AREA, 1 SPACE FOR 225 SQ FT GFA, PARKING REQUIREMENTS = 8 SPACES.
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS PARKING SPACES FOR 22969 PCH = (39 + 8 SPACES) = 47 SPACES.
EXISTING NON CONFORMING PARKING SPACES PROVIDED AT 22969 PCH = 23 SPACES TOTAL PARKING SPACE REQUIRED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY = (47 - 24 ) = 24 SPACES PROPOSED PARKING:
EXTERIOR PARKING: 11 STANDARD + 4 COMPACT + 3 A.D.A. = 18 PARKING SPACES INTERIOR PARKING: 24 STANDARD + 5 COMPACT = 29 PARKING SPACES TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING = 47 PARKING SPACES
PROPOSED PARKING SPACES ALLOCATION:
EXTERIOR PARKING - > 18 EXTERIOR PARKING SPACES:
ALL 18 PARKING SPACES FOR MOTEL, 3 ADA PARKING SPACES MIGHT BE SHARED WITH THE RESTAURANT AS NEEDED NUMBERS OF PARKING SPACES : 11 STANDARD + 4 COMPACT + 3 A.D.A. = 18 PARKING SPACES INTERIOR PARKING - > 29 INTERIOR SUBTERRANEAN PARKING SPACES 5 SPACES : (#11, #12, #27, #28, #29) FOR MOTEL ONLY,
21 SPACES: (#1 TO #7, #13 to #26) FOR VALET/ RESTAURANT ONLY, 3 SPACES: (#8 TO #10) FOR SHARING BETWEEN MOTEL & VALET/ RESTAURANT NUMBERS OF PARKING SPACES = 24 STANDARD + 5 COMPACT = 29 PARKING SPACES -> TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING = 47 PARKING SPACES
ADDITIONAL VALET PARKING WITH
STACK SYSTEM
22 SPACES ( VS #1 TO VS # 22)
ADDITIONAL VALET PARKING
20 SPACES ( V #1 TO V # 13)
AND ( V#1A TO V# 7A )
524
22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY.
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
MALIBU INN MOTEL
EXHIBIT #3
STORY POLES
525
22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY.
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
MALIBU INN MOTEL
EXHIBIT #4
RENDERING
526
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: SUPPORT of Malibu Inn Motel
From: Judy Ettinger
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:04 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Re: SUPPORT of Malibu Inn Motel
For tonight’s meeting.
> On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Judy Ettinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Attn: Planning Commission
>
> 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. 527
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Item 4D - "motel"
From: Linda
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4D ‐ "motel"
To our planning commission,
I seriously don’t understand how this project would be considered for approval.
We already have 3 hotel/motels right in that vicinity.
The gridlock the construction will cause is outrageous to even contemplate.
As it is we don’t drive on PCH on the weekends, now the weekdays will be just as hellish.
Please use your common sense and reject this project.
Thank you,
Linda Rivera
528
Date: September 8, 2021
Re: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Concerns From Local Neighbors 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
To: City of Malibu Planning Commission
From: Local Residents and Business Owners
Dear City of Malibu,
On behalf of local residents and business owners who are within the immediate vicinity of 22959 PCH, we are submitting this letter expressing our concern over the proposed development known as the Malibu Inn Motel, located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA. Below is a summary of our concerns we feel need to be immediately addressed as part of the Planning Application. It is our understanding that this project requires significant variances to the Malibu Municipal Planning Code of which everyone else is held to, which will have many roll on effects and direct impacts for both immediate neighbors and, long term, the Malibu wide community for future development precedent, as well as the environment and natural Malibu landscape.
Variance Requests
There are a number of variance requests which pose major environmental impacts and we are concerned what these impacts will to do our properties during construction and beyond, as well as for the future visual impacts of existing natural environment upon completion.
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. The impact to the existing hillside will pose major noise issues during construction and more importantly, potential local ground instability that may result in earth movement and vibrations to our own properties in the immediate area.
2. Construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1.
3. Retaining walls in excess of six feet in height (asking for a 52.5ft all wall above the subterranean parking garage as reference)
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 the natural environment, the risks and construction hurdles, this should obviously require an EIR. We firmly believe and request that this be carried out.
• EIR Risks Not Listed - On page 20 they only list "Noise" and "Geology/Soils" as Items of Risk. However, we believe, 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. We request these items be assessed and reported on. • Construction & Subterranean Parking - The creation of subterranean parking and a 52.5ft tall retaining wall will create a significant amount of heavy duty construction through the use of foundation piles that will create major earth vibration and sound during the course of construction, as well as other negative impacts such as large scale construction equipment (not otherwise required if building on flat land) required for such variance, blockages to traffic flow, noise, debris, dust etc. Approving a variance for an 529
enormously large wall and subterranean parking would create a significant impact to the existing landscape and residential wellbeing, along with creating a new precedent for Malibu.
To note: The Retaining Wall, Construction on Steep Slope, Non-Exempt Grading Variances - If you refer to the graphic illustration of the site section diagram, you will see how much land is being proposed to be removed from the mountain which is significant 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. We ask that this be changed to be per code. • The plan indicates the subterranean garage is at grade with two-stories above effectively making this a three-story building, against Malibu requirement of two-story buildings. So, in addition to significantly cutting into the mountain side with a large retaining wall variance, they are also effectively requesting a three-story building.
We request that an EIR be formerly carried out, alongside the other Items of Risk mentioned, as well as reproposing a structure that is per code and does not cut into the mountainside. We feel that the project, as proposed, will impose significant impacts to neighbors, the environment and the larger Malibu community, as well as future development precedent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Local Residents and Business Owners:
Matthew Goodwin
Mark and Kim Dempster
Roni Serrato
Bob Allen and Stella Yap
530
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Comments - Local Residents & Neighbors From: Mark Dempster
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:29 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Kim Dempster Matthew Goodwin
Subject: Re: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Comments ‐ Local Residents & Neighbors Hello Adrian,
We are the residential owners at , located across the street from Aviator Nation and next to the Malibu Pier.
We support 1) a hotel project, but 2) one which follows a thorough and proper process to address the building code issues as outlined by Matt Goodwin.
Thank you for your time and efforts on this matter.
Mark+Kim.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:54 PM Matthew Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Please find attached a letter from local residents and business owners expressing our concerns over the proposed Malibu Inn Motel project as it relates to the significant variance requests and ultimate constructability of the project.
I wanted to personally add that we have also noted that the required story poles were only installed over the weekend, despite the request as noted in the Malibu Times article from the Director (and override to not have them) from weeks ago. Given it's Labor Day Week and so close to the hearing, this is an issue.
Regards,
Matthew Goodwin
‐‐
Mark Dempster
531
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: item 4 D Motel
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 1:58 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: item 4 D Motel
I want to inform the Planning Commission that I am strongly against the "Motel" that will be placed in this lot. As a 45 year Malibu resident this will cause even more gridlock and accidents on the PCH and this will significantly ruin the town of Malibu. I urge you to vote against it.
Thank you,
Marni Kamins
Marni Kamins, LMFT
Psychotherapy
Office locations in West LA & Malibu
Business Hours: Mon-Thurs 9a - 6p, all calls received after business hours will be returned the following business day.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete the email and attachments from your computer. Thank you.
532
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Comments - Local Residents & Neighbors Attachments: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Comments.pdf
From: Matthew Goodwin
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Dempster ; Kim Dempster < Roni Serrato
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel Proposal Comments ‐ Local Residents & Neighbors Hi Adrian,
Please find attached a letter from local residents and business owners expressing our concerns over the proposed Malibu Inn Motel project as it relates to the significant variance requests and ultimate constructability of the project.
I wanted to personally add that we have also noted that the required story poles were only installed over the weekend, despite the request as noted in the Malibu Times article from the Director (and override to not have them) from weeks ago. Given it's Labor Day Week and so close to the hearing, this is an issue.
Regards,
Matthew Goodwin
533
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Planning Commission agenda item 4D 9/8/21
From: Richard Lawrence
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Sep 8, 2021 10:05 am
Subject: Planning Commission agenda item 4D 9/8/21
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
The Malibu Township Council opposes this project for many reasons.
Story poles are supposed to be up for the duration of the project. We just learned the story poles went up over the Labor Day weekend when it was impossible, due to traffic gridlock, for residents to look at them. Residents have not had a fair opportunity to view the poles visual impact. As a result, we request that this item be postponed for at least a month.
This project doesn’t meet the definition of a motel. But it meets the definition of a hotel.
Hotels require 2 parking spaces per guest room awhile motels require only one space per room. This project is under parked and is located in an area where street parking is not available. As with the Malibu Country Inn the number of employees is obviously understated and there will not be enough parking spaces to accommodate them.
The project ‘s height is far in excess of the allowable 24 ft. reported in the staff report. The maximum allowable height for a building with a flat roof is 24 feet measured from natural or finished grade whichever is lower. This project is nearly double the allowable height.
The subterranean parking isn’t subterrain. It is mostly located at grade level. The above ground portion of the parking lot must be included when measuring the height as does the elevator shaft on the roof deck.
The traffic situation at this location is gridlocked most of the time and certainly during rush hour and summer weekends. A hotel at this location will only make the traffic situation worse. A hotel doesn’t belong at this location.
We request the Commission deny this project.
Sincerely,
Richard Lawrence, President
Malibu Township Council
534
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: NO on proposed Hotel
From: Robert/Lonnie Janis/Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 4:13 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: NO on proposed Hotel
Sent from my iPhone
535
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Malibu Inn motel
From: Scott Dittrich
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:27 AM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Malibu Inn motel
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I believe there are significant issues with moving this project forward.
1. Inadequate public notice. I still have not seen story poles. Even if they were there having them up on a Labor Day weekend does not provide enough time for Citizens of Malibu to take notice and to offer input.
2. A net loss of 7 parking spots. Unacceptable. Ut really this is more like double that since beach parking is seldom used all day, but turns over every few hours.
3. Fire: Staff report relies on “mutual aid,” yet Chief Osby said in the January 2019 meeting at City Hall where he explained LACoFD’s “success” in fighting Woosley, that when he called for mutual aid, many or most localities refused.
4. Traffic. This project will only add to one of the most impacted areas along PCH. Where are the mitigation plans?
5. There are way too many variances provided by staff with comments that they won’t have an impact. Anything outside the LCP by definition has an impact. We should either get rid of any restrictions or heed the requirements.
6. Where is any benefit to the citizens of Malibu?
7. Equal treatment: If the Seaview Hotel must provide $400,000 or $800,000 to the City for a project that lessens the overall impact on the City, the Malibu Inn motel should, at half the size, provide half of this amount. Additionally, they should share the cost of the pumps at Topanga in case of a major fire.
Thanks
scott
536
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Please approve Malibu Inn Motel... #Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002,
From: Yvonne DeLaRosa
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:35 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Yvonne DeLaRosa
Subject: Please approve Malibu Inn Motel... #Coastal Development Permit No. 09‐067, Conditional Use Permit No. 18‐ 002,
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I hope this letter finds you all well. I am a local Malibu resident for over 25 years as well as a business owner in Malibu for over 7 years. I am in full support of this project. It is very obvious that Malibu needs more hotel rooms and the project is in a perfect commercial zone for this use. It is already surrounded by other hotels and the Malibu Pier, which makes it a great fit. Last but not least, it looks absolutely beautiful, and light years above the current unkempt parking lot. My whole life that parking lot has just been an eye sore and the thought of this area being respectfully developed can only help our community. The sufficient parking is a bonus as well as the proposed points of ingress and egress to help traffic flow on PCH. The tax revenue will be a much needed boon to our city and the rooms will also help with the airbnb situation in Malibu. Its just a great project overall and something we actually need in Malibu. I do hope this project can move forward. It is such a beautiful plan.
Much love and blessings to you all.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yvonne DeLaRosa Green
537
1 Planning Commission
From: Brittani A. Jackson
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar; John Cotti; Trevor Rusin; [email protected]; Kelsey Pettijohn; cityclerk
Cc: Marshall A. Camp
Subject: Letter re 12/6 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 4.E. (Malibu Motel) Attachments: 2021-12-03 Marshall Camp letter to City of Malibu re Malibu Motel.pdf Chair Hill and City staff,
Please find attached a letter submitted in connection with the December 6, 2021 meeting of the Malibu Planning Commission, Agenda Item 4.E. (Malibu Motel). We respectfully request that this letter be distributed to the Members of the Commission and be made part of the record for the December 6, 2021 meeting.
Thank you,
Brittani Jackson
Brittani A. Jackson
___________________________________
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
D:
T:
Biography
Los Angeles CA 90014
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information.
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
538
539
540
Exhibit A
541
From: Jason Ernst
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Letter re 8/26 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel) Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:07:54 PM
Attachments: 8-26-21 Letter to Planning Commission re Agenda Item 1.C..pdf Importance: High
From: Marshall A. Camp
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 1:10 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kathleen Stecko <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; John Cotti <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter re 8/26 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel) Importance: High
Chair Jennings and City staff,
Please find attached a letter submitted in connection with tonight’s meeting of the Malibu Planning Commission, Agenda Item 1.C. (Malibu Motel). We respectfully request that this letter be distributed to the Members of the Commission and be made part of the record for tonight’s meeting.
Thank you,
Marshall Camp
Marshall A. Camp
___________________________________
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
D:
T:
Biography
Los Angeles CA 90014
8/26/21 8/26/21 1:10pm 8/26/21 1C9
542
MARSHALL A. CAMP
Partner
[email protected]
D: 213 788 4541
T: 213 788 4340
F: 888 775 0898
523 West 6th Street
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90014
August 26, 2021
5837087
VIA E-MAIL
Jeffrey Jennings, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265-4861
[email protected]
Re: August 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 1.C. – Malibu Motel Dear Chair Jennings and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Mani Brothers Real Estate and affiliated companies that own properties in the vicinity of the proposed Malibu Motel, including the Malibu Beach Inn, located at 22878 PCH; the former Hertz lot at 22853 PCH; and the multifamily properties at 22640 and 22648 PCH (collectively, the “Mani Brothers”).
The Mani Brothers oppose the Malibu Motel, including the entitlements and approvals sought in connection with Agenda Item 1.C. at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Grounds for the opposition include, without limitation, the following:
1. The Proposed Use is a Hotel Prohibited in the CV-1 Zone. The proposed use is not a “motel” or “bed and breakfast inn” and is properly classified as a “hotel” under the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Zoning Code. Hotels are prohibited under the site’s current CV-1 zoning.
As defined in the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Zoning Code, a “motel” is “a group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land, [and] does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms”. (LIP
2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.) The proposed project fails to meet this definition in two significant respects.
First, there is no direct access from the guest rooms to the parking. None of the guest rooms are on the same level as the parking. To get from their rooms to the parking garage below, guests will need to travel through common walkways and corridors and use the common elevator or common stairs.
Second, the project includes a dedicated bar serving the large rooftop deck area, as well as a full commercial kitchen for food service. The rooftop deck and amenities would be used by motel guests on a daily basis, but events that would bring in visitors can be held onsite in the motel subject to City approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), including “weddings, B’nai Mitzvahs, parties, corporate events, and other festivities.” (Agenda Report, p. 13.) These amenities, such as the rooftop bar and 543
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
lounge, commercial kitchen and special event space, clearly distinguish this project from a “motel” and bring it within the definition of “hotel,” i.e., “a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and providing additional services, such as restaurants and meeting rooms.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.)1 Accordingly, this project cannot be approved without a zone change and LCP amendment to redesignate the site from CV-1 to CV-2 to allow a hotel.
2. Loss of Beach Parking. As stated in the Commission’s agenda report, the site is currently improved with a parking lot containing 40 spaces, of which at least 24 are required for the adjacent Aviator Nation restaurant/retail property. The remainder of the parking spaces have been used as beach parking (see February 2021 photo attached hereto as Exhibit A showing parking attendant shack and banner advertising “Beach Parking”).
The proposed motel includes 47 parking spaces, of which 24 will continue to be used for the adjacent Aviator Nation property. This leaves only 23 spaces for the Malibu Motel (far short of what code requires, as discussed below) and leaves zero spaces for beach parking. This represents an unmitigated loss of at least 16 spaces (from 40 to 24) currently available for beach parking. This loss of beach parking violates important policies of the Coastal Act and Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)2 and creates a significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR.
3. Insufficient Parking for the Motel. As explained above, the project should be classified as a “hotel” and not as a “motel.” Under the LIP and Zoning Code, a hotel requires two parking spaces per room, plus additional spaces for food and beverage serving area and employees. (LIP 3.14.3; MMC 17.48.030.) This would result in a parking requirement more than twice the 23 spaces provided for the Malibu Motel (47 total onsite, less 24 dedicated for the use of Aviator Nation).
Even if the property were required to provide only the number of spaces required for a “motel,” there would still be more than 23 spaces required. Staff calculated that 23 spaces were required based on the “motel” standard of one space per room, plus one space for each employee assuming three employees per shift. (LIP 3.14.3.) But the assumption of only three employees per shift is clearly too low. For example, at 5:00 pm on a typical day, the property would require at minimum seven (7) employees: a parking valet, a front desk clerk, a manager, a food prep chef, a dishwasher/bar back, a bartender, and a pool attendant/server. If any housekeeping personnel were still on site, the number would be even higher.
1 The proposed use also does not constitute a “bed and breakfast inn,” which is defined as “a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public and providing kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests of the facility only and not otherwise open to the public.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC
12.02.060.) While the project contemplates transient lodging and a commercial kitchen, so does any hotel.
Read in context with the definitions of motel and hotel, the term “bed and breakfast inn” was intended to reflect the traditional notion of a quaint, rural lodging house that offers breakfast to a handful of guests. A bustling, 20-room property at the pier with rooftop bar and dining service late into the night for its 30-40 guests along with public weddings and events is a hotel, not a B&B. Notably, the agenda report and proposed resolution uniformly refer to the project as a “motel” and never as a “bed & breakfast inn.” 2 Policies of the Malibu LCP include coastal access and the provision of adequate off-street parking. (See, e.g., LIP 1.2, paragraphs C and H.)
544
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
The project plans also reveal that the parking spaces provided do not conform to the stall sizes required by code. Except for the 20% allowed to be compact spaces, all standard stalls must be at least 9’ by 20’. The dimensions called out on the applicant’s Proposed Subterranean Garage Plan appear inaccurate, inconsistent and potentially misleading. (See Agenda Report at p. 87.) Simply by way of example, the plan appears to depict dimensions for spot #16, which is labeled as an “8’ x 16’ Compact Stall,” that are roughly identical to adjacent stalls labeled “9’x20’”:
(Agenda Report at p. 87.) And bizarrely, spot #25 appears to be labeled both “9’x20’” and “8’x16’”:
(Id.)
545
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
The same plan also shows a dead-end parking aisle with no adequate turnaround as prohibited by Zoning Code § 17.48.050(D) & LIP 3.14.5(D):
(Id.)
4. Project Exceeds the Maximum Allowable Height and Stories. The maximum height allowed for a new commercial building under the LCP is 24 feet (or 28 feet for a pitched roof) and two stories. (LIP
3.8(A)(1)(b).) As shown by the project’s south elevation (see Exhibit “B” to this letter), however, the project is actually four stories and over 40 feet tall. At the base is the entry lobby and reception area, together with an enclosed parking garage. The second and third levels contain the guest rooms and commercial kitchen. The top floor contains the pool deck, elevator box, and a roofed bar area.
Each of these four levels is a “story” under the LCP, which defines a “story” as: “that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the roof above.” (LIP 2.1; see also MMC 12.02.060.) Contrary to the Agenda Report‘s erroneous references to the project as a “two-story motel” (see e.g., p.11, referring only to the second and third levels which contain guest rooms) the first floor lobby/parking levels and the top floor pool and bar are also stories.
Indeed, the top floor is not only used as habitable floor area, but portions are roofed (to wit, the elevator box and bar), and these roofed portions squarely meet all aspects of the code definition for a fourth “story.” (See Ex. B.) Similarly, although the code states that a “basement” is not a story, the lobby/parking level does not meet the definition of a “basement,” i.e. “that portion of a building or an area 546
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
enclosed by walls located below finished grade and beneath or partially beneath the first floor footprint above, where the vertical distance from finished grade to the bottom of the finished floor above is no more than 3 vertical feet at all points around the perimeter of all exterior walls.” (Emphasis added.) Although the proposed motel will be built into the hillside and the lower level is partially below ground, the front (southerly) edge of the ground floor will be fully exposed and “daylighted” to at least a 10 foot height, as shown on Ex. B to this letter, and on pages 92 and 135 of the agenda report. The architect’s failed attempt to simulate a basement condition by flanking the exposed lobby frontage with dirt planters does not change the fact that the lower level includes at least a 10 foot height of exposed frontage and cannot be considered a “basement” as defined by code.
5. General Plan Inconsistencies. The proposed project clearly violates the following policies of the City of Malibu General Plan Land Use Element:
a. Section 1.1 in the Introduction to the Land Use Element states: “Commercial areas are limited to small neighborhood serving and visitor serving uses interspersed throughout the City ….” By contrast, the proposed project at four stories would be the tallest hotel approved to date in Malibu, and it would create the third hotel/motel in this immediate area (within approximately 500 feet of the Malibu Pier), which is already congested with restaurants and tourist facilities. b. LU Implementation Measure 67 requires a commercial planned development permit for any commercial development or change of use of existing development to assure compliance with current codes. The applicant here has not sought a planned development permit and the project does not comply with current codes (stories, setbacks, parking, grading, etc.) as documented in this letter. c. Section 1.5.4 of the Land Use Element states that the CV designation for this site provides for uses that serve visitors and residents, such as hotels and restaurants “which respect the rural character and natural environmental setting.” The imposing, four-story structure proposed here to be cut into the hillside would be entirely urban in character and—literally and figuratively—undercut the natural setting and terrain.
6. Inconsistencies with the LCP and Zoning Code. As noted above, the project violates so many provisions of the LCP and Zoning Code (excessive grading, height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, parking standards, retaining wall height, etc.) that it requires multiple variances and discretionary approvals to be approved. Many of these inconsistencies are openly identified and admitted by planning staff in the 47-page staff memorandum included in the agenda report. Others are identified above in this letter.
The required variances are not supported by the required findings.
For example, the agenda report claims that the hillside must be carved out because of “special circumstances,” citing the steep slopes at the rear of the lot. (Agenda Report at 23.) Those steep slopes, however, are far from unique in Malibu—to the contrary, they are the typical condition for most of the inland lots along PCH. Another variance allows for a 46-foot high retaining wall—more than three times the 12 foot maximum. This wall again is needed not for any unique condition of the property, but only because of the applicant’s desire to build into the hillside for the purpose of claiming that this fourstory structure only has a height of 24 feet by the trick of terracing back the building against the hillside and measuring vertically parallel to the slope. A third variance is required for parking in the front yard setback, which still does not provide sufficient parking for both the use and the 24 spaces already dedicated to the Aviator Nation property next door. The self-imposed voluntary arrangement made by 547
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
the property owner to sell perpetual parking rights to a neighbor should not be later used as a hardship justification for a variance to allow extra parking spaces located in the front yard setback.
7. CEQA Defects. The City has improperly used a mitigated negative declaration for this project, when an EIR should have been prepared in light of the project’s stark inconsistencies with the General Plan, LCP and Zoning Code as noted above. The MND failed to address additional traffic impacts and safety risks associated with this highly congested section of PCH. These include increased nighttime trips, increased nighttime pedestrian crossings of PCH by hotel guests, and increased nighttime left turns into and out of the unsignalized/uncontrolled driveways. Although my clients deal with these issues at the Malibu Beach Inn and believe they can be adequately mitigated, the City disagreed and cited these kinds of alleged PCH safety concerns in denying the Malibu Beach Inn’s pool and offsite parking application. The proposed Malibu Motel project should be held to the same standard, particularly because of the congestion and greater PCH crossings at this location directly across from the beach, and the shops and restaurants at the Malibu Pier.
The Planning Commission is respectfully urged to deny the proposed approvals for the reasons set forth above, as well as the many other grounds for denial raised in the voluminous public correspondence submitted in opposition to this project. If the project is to be brought forward again for further consideration, it should first be revised to be consistent with existing City plans and policies, and then evaluated in an EIR before returning to the Planning Commission for additional hearings.
Sincerely,
Marshall A. Camp
cc: John Cotti, City Attorney (via e-mail)
Kathleen Stecko (via e-mail)
548
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
Exhibit “A”
Existing Beach Parking at the Site
549
Malibu Planning Commission
August 26, 2021
5837087
Exhibit “B”
Proposed South Elevation
550
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 5:27 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Patricia Salazar; Colin Drummond
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Honorable Planning Commission,
We are opposing this project for the following multiple reasons:
1. Everyone always says we don’t have enough hotels yet Pacific Palisades has NO hotels or motels, we don’t need any more hotels in Malibu.
2. The traffic implications at the already most busiest intersection of Malibu is dangerous ‐ this alone should stop the project. There is also no safe way to exit left out of the motel/hotel.
3. No extensions on the original project were ever filed to justify the new application ‐ the water ban made only one day after the initial commercial retail project would not allow any new project ‐ the planning dept should have closed this project due to inactivity for almost 10 years but for some reason did not. CDP’s expire after two years. So CDP 09‐67 should be long expired. In the geoconcepts report dated June 20, 2018 it states that “the proposed commercial development project was approved from a geotechnical perspective in the CDP review stage on may 31, 2016. The revised plans for the motel project were submitted over two years later on June 11, 2018. The fixture count also going to 4 times the amount from 56 units to 229 units shows two extremely different projects and a new application should have been filed. Especially given the water issues at the site.
4. This is essentially a hotel not a motel as it has room service and an underground garage, etc so cannot be approved due to its zoning.
5. This area needs more parking not less ‐ this will remove a huge chunk of public parking and pch will be marred by more tourists looking for parking by the pier slowing down traffic.
6. It does not meet the parking requirements even with the shared use of aviator nation.
7. The granting of the variances for the project does constitute a special privilege as no properties in the immediate vicinity are built into the slope with a giant retaining wall with inadequate parking.
8. The environmental impacts of this project are huge, the extremely large amount of non exempt grading (almost 370000 pounds extra non exempt grading) ‐ from the lip 5.9 “commercial development shall be designed to avoid intrusive traffic circulation and light and glare.” (At minimum 68 additional average daily trips) and the ERB CITED “potential traffic impact…is a concern”, a 46 ft tall retaining wall with excavation of 58 ft, the estimated wastewater discharge rate is grossly underestimated at 4056 gallons per day ‐ this is less than 5 times the average home in Big Rock’s water usage (20 persons) and with a likelihood of the amount of 12‐15 homes in big rock it should be at least doubled.
For 65 people per day using the facilities at the motel it would be at minimum 12000 gpd used.
9. Due to the high water usage of this project it would have greater impacts than the former project at over 4 times the amount of fixtures and even more usage from motel guests rather than customers 10. The homes directly above the slope of this property 190 ft up will be disturbed by noise but also has geology testing been done showing it’s safe to build on that slope? Groundwater was encountered during geotechnical exploration ‐ what is the effect of all the septic water usage on this groundwater? Was that ever considered given the need for a water ban in the area? This was not studied in the private sewage report in 2012 or subsequent septic reports. The proposed piles will encounter water it states in the June 20, 2018 geotechnical report for the project. The last percolation test completed for the property was April 17, 2003. Water level has greatly risen since that study was completed and new tests should be completed.
Groundwater levels data and beach deposits data in the latest geotechnical reports date back to 6/28/87, 4/25/03 & 8/27/07. This was all completed before the water ban. More updated measurements are needed and required to see if the septic system will fail or not and if the slope is stable. The studies were also based on 56 units as compared to the new 229 units. The peak flow in the 2014 ensitu report was almost 2000 gpd for 56 units so multiplied by over 4 times 551
2 the fixtures would be a minimum of 8000 gpd in their conservative estimates so should not only be 4056 gpd as in the 2018 ensitu report.
Thanks very much for your consideration in sending this back to planning for further study or outright denial due to the existing water ban.
Jo & Colin Drummond
552
1 From: Lester Tobias
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 10:40 PM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Dennis Smith <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Surfside Motel: a letter from me....
Hi All,
Again, sorry for the late response but the staff report came out pretty late, I'm pretty busy, it takes time to review this stuff and think about it and put a cogent argument together. And like I say in the letter, I was really on the fence about speaking out (again) on this subject.
I doubt I'll be on the zoom tomorrow night, so y'all have a good time with this project. Please consider my remarks.
Thank you.
LT
‐‐
Lester Tobias, Principal
Tobias Architecture, Incorporated
Malibu, California 90265
NCARB #101162
California Architect's License C22552
Montana Architect's License ARC‐20223
553
You know, I almost walked away from this project.
I don’t want to beat up on my friend Doug Burdge. Doug and I have worked together on several valiant, if failed attempts to improve the LIP. We teamed up and worked side by side immediately after the Woolsey Fire to successfully lobby the planning director for a quick and equitable planning verification process. And I was Doug’s most valuable ally in the fight to stave off an ill conceived downsizing of TDSF brought on by several of his “clean sheets” maximum TDSF projects.
I also don’t have any objections to a 20 room motel. I have advocated for the creation of a “hospitality zone” overlay in the area of the motel, and came out early, strongly, and often in support of Norm’s hotel.
I have worked for the Hakim family in the past, including the vacant lot in question. I have no personal axe to grind with Mr. Hakim or his sons.
The staff report is what keeps me from walking away. It is a full frontal assault on the LIP, and, while I have come to expect this kind of approach from several architects and expediters on individual projects, I have always been able to lay my head on my pillow at night knowing that the LIP, planning staff, and planning commission will keep the most ridiculous requests from seeing the light of day. It is what allows me to sleep soundly.
However, this particular staff report keeps me up at night. It does so because it is so bogus that, if approved, it will be hard for me NOT to think that the deck was stacked, the fix was in, and the process was rigged from the start.
As explanation, allow me to walk through just a few brief elements contained in the staff report, and bring to your attention the most obvious troublesome areas.
On page 11, the first sign of trouble appears. In a subheading under Height, the report uses a phrase that I have never before read in a staff report. “full site development would be enabled by construction of a retaining wall at the north side…”. This is a subtle tee-up for the false findings that staff uses later in the report to recommend granting a 50 foot retaining wall. I have never seen the concept of “full site development” as a justification for a project element that exceeds allowable limits by four hundred percent. This retaining wall will surface later in this letter, so pay attention.
On Page 12, under Grading, the staff report states that a total amount of 13,043 cubic yards of grading is proposed, yet exempts 11,693 cubic yards of this grading as exempt due to its being classified as “under structure” grading. This section of the report suggests that the project is barely over the allowable amount of excavation, by a paltry 170 cubic yards.
What the staff report fails to mention is that almost the entire amount of this exempt, “understructure” grading is due to the fifty foot retaining wall, requested later in the report. A more Malibu California 90265
Planning Commission
Item 4E
December 8th, 2021
554
honest staff report would have required the applicant to analyze the grading differential between a design that did not require the fifty foot retaining wall, and the yardage presented. (see image below).
Another part of the lack of an honest staff report with respect to the grading is that they do not explain the manipulation of the existing grade to create a basement condition which could not be achieved without essentially moving the toe of the slope forty feet toward the street in order to cover the face of the building that is actually sitting at grade. Now I think that this maneuver is legit if it falls under the 1,180 cubic yards of exempt grading, but shouldn’t be a reason for a grading variance. The staff should have been able to discern this, as well. I am also curious as to whether the chunk of dirt, labeled “fill and soil” above the stacked parking was counted as non-exempt grading, or as “under-structure” (but now I am splitting hairs, so.)… On page 14, under OWTS, the staff has ignored the commission’s request, made at the September 8th hearing, to verify that the current project enjoys the previous project exemption from the wastewater moratorium. This was an important issue, as the previous exemption was based on the project being a mixed use office/retail building, not a hotel with bar and restaurant that is also requesting non-guest uses such a weddings, bar-mitzvahs, and the like.
This is one of the more troubling aspects in the staff report, as it can be construed as complete insubordination against the planning commission. This was a valid question, an easy question on which to obtain an answer, and now the question needs to be “why wasn’t it asked?" On page 24 in the discussion of the grading variance, the staff report states, “Therefor, commercial development on the subject property would not be feasible without granting a variance for non-exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards per acre.” Malibu California 90265
555
This is a totally false statement. How do I know this? I know this because I have personally designed four distinct commercial buildings for this site. Two for the previous owner, Mitchel Stewart and two for the Hakim family. I have included a few conceptual model images below.
Malibu California 90265
556
Malibu California 90265
557
Two of these projects did not require retaining walls that would have needed a variance. The other two required 24 foot tall retaining walls.
My professional experience with the site compels me to call bullshit on whoever said that you need a 50 foot retaining wall to build a commercial project here.
retaining wall. There is a tortured paragraph in the justification section of the variance request.
It reads thusly:
“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 PCH; and it is essential for securing excavation of the steep slope to accommodate the structure. Therefor, a commercial development on the Project Site would not be feasible without granting a variance for retaining wall height in excess of 12 feet.”
“Integral”. “Integrated”. “Required”. “Essential”. Those words are NOT coming from the applicant. They are coming from the planner. And they are lies.
Now, I think the most interesting tact the planning commission could take at the hearing would be to flush out the person who wrote this paragraph. Find out what compelled them to make such a strong case for an applicant. It is not only a lie. It is worded to manipulate the commissioners’ perception of the development potential of the site.
If I were on the commission I’d be pissed.
Speaking of being pissed, I just want to briefly touch on the staff responses to the many, many public comment letters received as part of the Negative Declaration study that were attachments in the original staff report.
Now a naive individual would think that his or her comment or complaint about a part of the project would be taken seriously by both the applicant and the planner. What I find interesting is that the staff responses to literally each and every letter could be summed up in a two word comment. “Yeah…no.” The arrogance of the responses is breathtaking, but not surprising.
And the lack of self reflection is astonishing. According to this planner, the staff has never made a mistake, or never gotten anything wrong.
I encourage you to very briefly review those letters. They are numerous and in one of those sort of magical crowd source moments, THEY GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING WRONG ABOUT THE PROJECT.
Yay Residents Go!
Yours Truly,
Lester Tobias
Malibu California 90265
558
1 Planning Commission
From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:23 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Plng Comm mtg 12/6/21 - Item 4D & 4E RECUSAL OF JENNINGS FROM VOTING ON MATTERS Hello,
I request that Chair Jennings make a disclosure this evening as to the firm he has hired to rebuild his Woolsey impacted home to ascertain if there could be a relationship issue that can be seen as improper or beholding to this project in the expected vote.
Burdge and Associates is a large firm that is handling many of the Woolsey fire rebuilds, I do believe this disclosure is necessary on all development proposals that come before the Planning Commission but in this case I flat out demand a transparent disclosure to insure that the community is assured of full transparency and adherence to the laws. We've already suffered the piss poor - sorry but that is exactly what went down and the applicant deserves no mincing about the disrespect shown by their lack of actions to present a true representation of the project - behavior of the applicant in past meetings and it has not been pretty nor has it advanced the reputation of the applicant's intentions for the community. I am leery and know that many others are as well.
Please exercise the utmost transparency in this project on all matters going forward, not simply this evening. Should never, ever have taken so much to get the story poles in compliance and for that alone I remain distrustful of both staff and applicant for so many other areas of concern - not the least being the separation of the excavations of the retaining wall and the underground area of the motel itself - combine those two to present the true excavation of the site that is involved in both agenda items this evening.
Thank you,
Mari Stanley
Zumirez Dr., Malibu, CA
559
1 Planning Commission
From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: John Cotti; john mazza; Kraig Hill
Subject: Item 4E is not signed, not APPROVED for Agenda by city dept head and not acknowledged for entry into agenda
Where is the standard, normal signatures/initials that are signs to me that the item has been reviewed, accepted and is approved by the dept head and the other normal signatures/initials from city staff?
Every other item and specifically with regards to plans and development proposals carries forward signatures and acknowledgements of review and approvals - save for this one.
In that aspect, the item lacks the transparency required to have full trust in the final product as it sits on tonight's agenda. The item must be pulled and forwarded to a future meeting once all the appropriate approval avenues are achieved.
This is looking very unprofessional and that's not an easy thing to lob at the City but it's right there, plain as day. Snuck this one in? That is how residents will view it both this evening and for historical purposes.
Thank you,
Mari Stanley
Zumirez Dr
560
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: item 4E Malibu Inn Motel 12-6-21
Attachments: pc Malibu Inn Motel 12-6-21.docx
From: healypatt@
Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 11:02 AM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark Wetton <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: item 4E Malibu Inn Motel 12‐6‐21
Attached are MCSG's comments on the Malibu Inn Motel. Please let me know if you have questions. thanks, Patt 561
1 To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Patt Healy for Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
Re: Item 4 E Malibu Inn Motel
Date: December 6 2021
Honorable members of the Planning Commission,
This project should be denied for the following reasons.
Violates Development Standards
This overly ambitious project doesn’t meet city ‘s development criteria and needs an excessive number of variances to build. If the city is willing to grant so many variances it is making a mockery of our development criteria. Why have development standards if they are not being followed allowing a developer the right to build any project it desires? Variances are not supposed to be granted as a way to circumvent development rules This project is just the type of large structures that Malibu wanted to avoid when it became a city.
Requires a 50+ foot high retaining wall, when 6 foot is allowed.
Project is being build on and into slopes greater than 3 ½ to 1.
An enormous amount of grading ,13,043 cu.yds.is what is required when 1000 cu yds is allowed. They developer is excavating into a bluff face and exporting 12,646 cu yds of dirt off site. Haul trucks carry 10 cu yds of grading so the amount of trips is closer to 1260 trips onto the most congested part of PCH in Malibu causing more traffic delays.
A 48 ft high structure when 28 ft is the maximum allowed. The height is not measured from grade and includes an above grade parking lot. In addition, the roof top deck should be counted as at least a half a story . Two stories is the standard and this project is 3 ½ stories.
The so called subterrain parking lot is not subterrain. Only about 3 ft are below ground. The remainder is above grade Putting a berm around the above grade parking garage doesn’t make it subterrain.
To measure grade from several feet up the slope instead of from ground level is a misinterpretation of the code and then to call the obviously above ground 562
2 parking structure subterrain is creating a fiction which was never the intention of the code.
On page 8 /48 of the Staff report it states there are 18 at grade parking spaces.
Then it states there are 29 subterrain spaces. Looking at an illustration of the project one will note that the so called subterrain parking spaces are clearly mostly entirely above grade of the 18 at grade spaces. Placing a berm around an above grade structure , like this project does doesn’t make it subterrain.
If you grant these variances, it will set a dangerous precedent for the reconstruction of older buildings along the east end of PCH. It will also create a dangerous precedent for hillside residential development who following this interpretation of the code will allow 3 story high structures throughout Malibu with the above grade garage being called subterrain.
Furthermore , the project is located in 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. This project is not consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting. It is urban /suburban in nature.
RWQCB
Doubtful RWQCB would allow this project since it is in an area where new projects are banned until Phase 3 when projects in this area are hooked up to the civic center wastewater treatment plant.
Staff say it is a revised project but clearly this is not accurate. It is a new project .
The former project was for a small shopping plaza and this project is for a 20 room motel with a rooftop pool and a bar. The wastewater generated by this motel will be much greater than the wastewater of a tiny shopping plaza.
In addition, we are in perhaps a permanent drought situation and we are all being asked to conserve water. This motel will have high water usage as well as generating high amount of wastewater.
The city should check with RWQCB to determine whether a 20 room motel is allowed to be constructed prior to the areas hookup to phase 3. 563
3 CEQA
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was done years ago for a different project which would have much less of an impact than the current project. The CEQA study needs to be updated.
If the Planning Commission is considering allowing this project, the developer has to update it CEQA studies before it can be approved This proposed project is located in the most congested and overdeveloped area of Malibu and the project needs a Traffic , Circulation and Parking Study. Also the cumulative impact Study of the surrounding projects ,including the new traffic light in front o the Malibu Beach Inn . Also, a noise study needs to be done. To determine the impact on surrounding neighbors. Not only up slope but next door and those living across PCH
Not a Motel
It doesn’t meet the LIP definition of a motel. Besides motels don’t have bars with alcohol beverage service. We do not recommend that the motel be authorized to serve alcohol.
Serving alcohol on a roof deck with a pool could/would create even a greater nuisance to the surrounding neighbors, including the synagogue and school next door.
Parking
Employees have to park on site. Staff states there will only be 3 employees on site at one time but this defies reality. Slow Growth estimates 8-12 during the daytime shift will be needed. Where will the unaccounted-for employee’s park.
The project is severely under parked especially since the Malibu Inn is allotted 24 spaces on the project site which can only be done with stacked parking which requires a full time operator and will cause evacuation chaos in an emergency.
The motel can be used for 6 events , such as weddings ,a year. Where will the guest and caterers park during these events? Motels do not allow these special events.
564
4 ERB
This is a different project than what went before the ERB earlier and the impacts are far greater than small shopping plaza .Thus ERB review should be required.
Existing Parking Lot
Today, this site provides much needed parking for visitors to the Malibu Pier, Adamson House and Surfrider beach. This amenity will be lost and not replaced if this project is allowed to go forward.
Variances
In good faith the necessary findings can’t be made to justify this project. If the findings are made it will open the door for other projects of this nature further eroding the rural nature of Malibu.
Please deny this project. Thank you for considering these comments.
565
1 Planning Commission
From: Rosemarie Ihde >
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Dear Commissioners,
Before you vote yes on this project please think about:
Traffic on PCH, Highway is not designed nor equipped to handle more traffic. PCH is already over capacity.
Please remember carrying capacity when voting for such a big and questionable project.
Where will all the cars park?
It is easy to pass such a project if you live on the west side of Malibu, but how about living on the east side of Malibu? Sincerely
Rosemarie Ihde
Piedra Chica Road
Malibu
566
1 From: Georgia Goldfarb
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 6:09 PM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mark Wetton <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please deny this project. It makes a mockery of having building codes. If you permit this, it would seem that anyone could build any project they wished. For example: it allows a 50 ft retaining wall – code is 6 ft.; it is built on a slope greater than 3:1; it permits more than 3000 cu yd greater than the code allows and the dirt removed will require more than 1200 trips to haul it away, which in turn will increase traffic congestion and air pollution adjacent to a school. I’m sure you are familiar with the negative effects of diesel fumes on anyone with lung disease, including kids with asthma. Further while the garage has a slightly sunken portion, it is not subterranean as the applicant states. Webster’s: subterranean: “being, lying, or operating under the surface of the earth”.
This will clearly exacerbate traffic congestion and reduce already limited parking for guests and visitors. In addition the estimated employees during the day would be three or four times that estimated by the applicant: 8 to 12 vs 3. Where will they park?
The project is a new project, not a revised project: 20 room motel/hotel with rooftop pool and bar is categorically not a tiny shopping center. Further, the water usage attributable to the two projects are not comparable.
This project does not comport with the rural nature of Malibu as defined in its mission statement. It is a suburban/urban motel/hotel.
Please deny this project.
Thank you,
Georgia Goldfarb
567
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
No t ic e o f Publ i c Hea r in g
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
22969 PCH 22959 PCH
No t ic e o f Publ ic Hea r ing
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on THURSDAY, August 26, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. on the project identified below via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 & N-29-20 & the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s Safer at Home Order.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT NO. 13-006 AND JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT NO. 14-001 - An application to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 09-009 and Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA) No. 10-001 to allow the reduction of the restaurant service area in order to accommodate the creation of a new retail tenant space, and decrease the number of required off-site parking spaces in the JUPA to reflect the new number of required offsite parking spaces at an existing restaurant (Aviation Nation Dreamland) LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 22969 Pacific Coast Highway /4452-019-004/Commercial Visitor-Serving-One (CV-1) APPLICANT / OWNER: Steven Hakim
APPEALABLE TO: City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 APPLICATION FILED: December 11, 2013
For the project listed above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Director has analyzed this proposed project and found that it is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 09-067, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-002, JOINT USE PARKING AGREEMENT NO. 18-001, INITIAL STUDY NO. 20-003, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 20-003, VARIANCE NOS. 18-029, 18-030, 18-031 AND 20-035, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 18-025 - An application 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; including a conditional use permit for a motel in the Commercial Visitor-Serving-One zoning district and sale of alcohol, a variance for non-exempt grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards per acre of commercial development, a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, a variance for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height, a variance for surface parking within the required front yard setback, a site plan review for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, and a joint use parking agreement to share the parking spaces with the adjacent lot to the east (22969 Pacific Coast Highway – Malibu Inn) LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway / 4452-019-005 / Commercial Visitor-Serving-One (CV-1) APPLICANT / OWNER: Burdge and Associates Architects, Inc. / Surfrider Plaza, LLC APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2021020396) CEQA Guidelines 15164 APPLICATION FILED: June 11, 2018
For the project listed above with an initial study for environmental review, pursuant to CEQA, the City adopted an initial study and mitigated negative declaration finding that the project would have no significant adverse effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070).
STAFF CONTACT CASE PLANNER: Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 482 A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project, typically 10 days before the hearing in the Agenda Center: http:// www.malibucity.org/agendacenter. Related documents are available for review by contacting the Case Planner during regular business hours. You will have an opportunity to testify at the public hearing; written comments which shall be considered public record, may be submitted any time prior to the beginning of the public hearing. If the City’s action is challenged in court, testimony may be limited to issues raised before or at the public hearing. To view or sign up to speak during the meeting, visit www.malibucity.org/virtualmeeting.
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision made by 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 may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms, in person, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - For the project appealable to the Coastal Commission, an aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.
RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: August 5, 2021 568
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 9
569
570
ATTACHMENT 10
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
• WWW.KFSENG.COM •
17547 VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 302 • ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91316 • T 818-874-1445 530 TECHNOLOGY DR, SUITE 100 & 200, IRVINE, CA 92618
310 SW 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 404, PORTLAND, OR 97204
February 11, 2022
Steven Hakim
9350 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
P 310-393-5800 C 310-908-7300
F 310-393-1292
E [email protected]
Project: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90265
Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering Inc. KFSE Job No. 18061.00 Subject: Planning Commission Response
At your request, KFSE has created a structural response to the request from the planning commission request for clarification on min setback requirements for descending slopes. The proposed new structure will be subject to the requirements of the California building code. That current code is the 2019 California Building Code. Section 1808.7 Foundations on or adjacent to the slopes provides the requirements for hillside setbacks. All new structures are subject to this requirement unless alternate setback clearances are granted per section 1808.7.5. Figure 1808.7.1 of the California building code provides guidance on the setback requirements. In addition to the California building code figure. Los Angeles department of building and safety has provided a public bulletin P/BC 2020-001 which helps interpret the setbacks. Although the project is not within the jurisdiction of LADBS the document helps clarify section 1808.7 of the California Building Code. Many other adjacent jurisdictional authorities have created a similar information bulletin.
We have included that P/BC 2020-001 as appendix A.
Sincerely,
Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering, Inc.
Kurt Fischer, Lic. # S5432
ATTACHMENT 11
581
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Planning Commission Response
KFSE Job No. 18061.00
February 11, 2022
• WWW.KFSENG.COM •
17547 VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 302 • ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91316 • T 818-874-1445 208 SW 1st AVE, SUITE 220 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 • T 503-272-6675 APPENDIX A – P/BC 2020-001
582
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
FOOTING/BUILDING SETBACKS FROM SLOPES
The placement of buildings and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical shall be in accordance with Section 1808.7 of the Building Code. When a geology and/or soils report is required by the Department, the setbacks prescribed by the code shall be considered sufficient only when the report has addressed the following:
1. The static, seismic (when required), and surficial stability of the slope. The factor of safety must meet a minimum of 1.5 for static and 1.0 for seismic.
2. The kinematic stability (when required) of rock slopes. The factor of safety must meet a minimum of
1.5 for potential planar, wedge, and/or topple failures where the kinematic analyses has demonstrated the geometric potential of such failure modes to occur.
3. The erosion potential of the soils. Appropriate mitigation measures must be provided as necessary.
4. The adequate performance of similar slopes in the general area.
5. Appropriate surface water drainage provisions.
6. Debris/mud flow potential.
Figures 1 through 8 show standard methods of providing the code required setback for buildings and footings for all structures except pools.
Figure 1 (Section 1808.7.1)
INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC - BUILDING CODE
REFERENCE NO.: LAMC 1808.7 Effective: 01-01-2020
DOCUMENT NO. P/BC 2020-001 Revised:
Previously Issued As: P/BC 2017-001
FACE OF
FOOTING
PROPOSED
STRUCTURES
* The ground surface within the H/2 setback distance
between the building and toe of slope, shall not be a
sloping surface. A sloping surface shall be defined as a surface inclined at greater than 10%. (Section 7003)
TOP OF
SLOPE
1 <3
STABILIZATION
PILES/ DEEP
FOUNDATION
H
H/2*
H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED
15 FEET (4572 mm) MAX.
TOE OF SLOPE
FACE OF PROP.
BUILDING
H/3
H/3 BUT NEED
NOT EXCEED 40
FEET (12192 mm)
MAX.
H/3
583
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
H 1
<3
H/3 NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET
H/2 NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H 1
<3
Figure 3 (Section 1808.7.1)
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE
H/2 NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <1
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET H
1 <1 H/3
Figure 4 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 5 (Section 1808.7.2) Figure 2 (Section 1808.7.2)
Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (45 degrees), then the setback is measured from an imaginary line projected at an angle of 45 degrees and tangent to the slope (see Figures 4 & 5). 584
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET H
1 <1 H/3
Figure 6 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 7 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 8 (Section 1808.7.1)
The H/2 level setback may be partitioned into a maximum of two adjoining levels by the use of retaining walls, such that when the two levels are added together they equal the distance H/2 (as shown in Figure 8). Where the H/2 distance is less than or equal to 5 feet, only one level is allowed.
As shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, the building shall be provided with a level setback area from the ascending slope. The toe of the slope shall not be located against the building wall.
H/2
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <3
RETAINING WALL
NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT H/2
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <3
COMPACTED FILL FINISHED LEVEL
RETAINING WALL
H
H/2*
PROPOSED
BUILDING
* NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
585
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
Figure 9 (Section 1808.7.3) Figure 10 (Section 1808.7.3) Figure 11 (Section 1808.7.3)
CLEARANCE = H/4, MAX. 7 1/2 FEET
H
1 <3
H/4
Figure 12 (Section 1808.7.3)
Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 show how the standard setback can be provided for pools adjacent to a slope steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical but less than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane projected at an angle of 45 degrees and tangent to the slope. In addition to the footing setback, any portion of the pool wall within 7 feet of the top of the slope shall be designed for a freestanding condition, without soil support (see Figure 10). * The spring line is defined as the location on the pool shell where it changes curvature away from the adjacent slope. In addition, the pool clearance dimension is measured to the outside of the pool shell not the inside finished surface.
SPRING LINE*
H
1 <3 H/6
SETBACK = H/6 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 20'
(MEASURED FROM THE POOL SPRING LINE)
Free Standing Design for walls beyond
this line
H
1 <3
7' SETBACK
H/4
H
1 <3
RETAINING WALL
CLEARANCE = H/4, MAX. 7 1/2 FEET SPRING LINE*
H
1 <3 H/6
SETBACK = H/6 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 20'
(MEASURED FROM THE POOL SPRING LINE)
586
22435 PCH.
22601 PCH.
22741 PCH.
22065 PCH.
4451-011-905
22809 PCH.
PROPOSED
22959 PCH.
TALL RETAINING WALLS ALONG PCH
APPROVED 18 - 41 FT. RETAINING WALLS IN THE CITY OF MALIBU 587
ATTACHMENT 12
22065 PCH.
Built in 2006 (Coastal Commission Permit 5-90-265)
Approved by City Council in 2003, up to 41 C. high retaining walls 13,000 cu. yds. grading (including 5,000 cu. yds. remedial grading for landslide). 22065 PCH
588
Notice of Exemption
To: O Office of Planning and
1400 Tenth Street, Roy
Sacramento, CA 9581
D County Clerk
County of Los Angeles
P.O. Box 1024
Norwalk, CA 90651-1024
From
JUN 1 3 2006
~~TY CLERKS OFFICE
City of Malibu
Planning Division
of Malibu
15 Stuart Ranch Road
ibu, CA 90265
Project Title: Coastal Development Permit No. 05-075. Site Plan Review Nos. 06-006. 06-007, and 06-008, and Variance Nos. 03-013 and 03-014
Project Location —Specific: 22435 Pacific Coast Highway Project Loca#ion —City: Malibu Project Location -- County: Los Angeles Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: An application for the construction of a new. two-story. 7,330 square foot single-_family residence with a 3,462 square foot basement. not to exceed 28-feet in height. Landscaping, hardscape (including a driveway and fire department turnaround) grading fences walls and an alternative onsite wastewater treatment system are also proposed. Site plan reviews are requested for heicaht above 18-feet. construction on slopes greater than 2'/2 to 1, and remedial grading. Variances are requested for construction on slopes exceeding 2'h to 1 and for retaining wall height over six-feet.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Malibu Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Norman Haynie on behalf of property owner Blue Onyx Design and EnQineerinq. Inc.
Exempt Status: (check one)
O Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268):
O Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)):
D Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)):
D Categorical Exemption; Type and section number: 15303 O Statutory Exemptions; Code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: The project consists of a new single-family residence and associated development. As such. the project is consistent with the classes of projects described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (e) that are considered exempt from further CEQA review. None of the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 apps. No potentially significant impacts will result from the project. either singularly or cumulativelLr.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Joshua Hart Telephone Number: (310) 456-2489 ext. 250 Signature: Title: Senior Planner
Joshua Hart
Q Signed by Lead Agency FILL~ceived for filing at OPR:
O Signed by Applicant
MAY 1 ~ 2006
0 6 0 ~J X 0 2 9 3 CONNY~, MoCgRMACK, C~UN'fYCI.EHK
<< P ~ M. SMITH p
Date: March 21.2006
'r~s N wAs posr~n
ox ~A~ 112006
cn~r, ~1(1N ~ ~ ~M~
~~-RECORDF.R/OpUNTY OAK
22435 PCH.
22435 PCH (CDP 05-075)
Approved in 2006, 18 1 retaining wall & 30,000 cu. yds. grading, construc>on on slope exceeding 2 1/2 to 1 589
22601 PCH.
22601 PCH.
Built in 1991. Coastal Commission Permit 5-87-132
35,374 sq. <. 16,204 cu. yds. grading, 15 7 height retaining walls 590
+21.50'
+70.70'
+44.30'
+19.00'
+58.30'
+33.00'
+44.70'
+58.00'
+46.30'
+82.70'
+96.20'
+46.30'
(N) BASEMENT
LOBBY
001
(N) OPEN LOBBY
101
+10.00'
(N) ROOM
204
(N) OPEN LOBBY
304 (E) GARAGE
(N) ROOM
405
(E) ROOF AND
PARAPET TERRACE
701
+68.10'
(E) PARKING
12'-0"
10'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6"
11'-3 1/2"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-0"
(N) PARKING
(N) TERRACE
(N) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(N) TRELLIS
EASEMENT
11'-0"
8'-6" MAX
PROPERTY LINE
74'-9"
NEW HOTEL BUILDING
116'-0"
EXISTING BUILDING (REMODEL TO HOTEL GUEST ROOMS)
6'-0"
(N) BALCONY
24'-3 1/2"
28' ABOVE EXISTING OR
FINISH GRADE SURFACE,
WHICHEVER IS LOWER
POOL EQUIPMENT AND A.C.
EXISTING GRADE WHERE
THE ELEVATOR IS LOCATED
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION B-B'
A3.11
SECTIONS
MALIBU
SEA VIEW
HOTEL
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE
PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF THE CURRENT
OWNER AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY
OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN
AGREEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT.
PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
22741 / 22729 PCH
MALIBU, CA 90265
ISSUANCE:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
03/04/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
8/25/2017 10:20 AM
HATCH LEGEND
03/25/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
04/04/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
04/14/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
08/09/17 PLANNING DEPT SUB
EXISTING WALLS
NEW WALLS
LANDSCAPE AREA
Blue Onyx Design & Engineering, Inc.
22741 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400, Malibu CA 90265 310-456-5515
16654 SOLEDAD CANYON RD. #505
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91387
08/28/17 08/17/17
22741 PCH.
21 $ retaining walls
22741 PCH.
21 ft.
Ret.
Walls
Approx.
65 ft.
CDP Approved for the Proposed Hotel 2022
591
22809 PCH
26 FT RETAINING WALL
22809 PCH
592
EXHIBIT E
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
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
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
(818) 994-8895
www.GeoConceptsInc.com
14428 Hamlin St., Suite 200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + 22601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 235, Malibu, CA 90265 January 11, 2024 Project 2506
Surfrider Plaza LLC
1541 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Subject: REAR YARD SLOPE
Proposed Malibu Inn Motel
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California
References:
1) Geotechnical Review Sheet by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc. for the City of Malibu, Department of Building and Safety, dated March 22, 2019. 2) Preliminary Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report by GeoConcepts, Inc. covering the subject site dated June 4, 2003 and December 4, 2014. 3) Supplemental reports by GeoConcepts, Inc. covering the subject site dated April 27, 2012, June 27, 2012, February 26, 2015, May 29, 2015, September 21, 2015, April 28, 2016, and October 16, 2018.
4) Septic Supplemental Report No. 1 by GeoConcepts, Inc. covering the subject site dated June 16, 2015.
Dear Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, presented herein is a discussion of the rear yard ascending slope on the subject property. Apparently during the planning process at the City of Malibu, a question was raised whether or not the rear yard ascending slope should be considered a coastal bluff.
GeoConcepts, Inc. prepared geologic and geotechnical reports for the proposed motel on the subject site between 2004 and 2019 (References 2 through 4). The slope is mantled with slope wash that is the result of terrestrial processes and is not associated with wave action. Slope wash deposits occur at the toe of most natural slopes and are the result of erosion and redeposition of bedrock materials and sediments. During research at the City of Malibu of nearby sites no discussion of the slope being a coastal bluff was found. The reports were reviewed by the City of Malibu Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Reviewers. They did not consider the slope a coastal bluff slope since they approved the motel project from a geotechnical
EXHIBIT F
627
January 11, 2024 Page 2
Project 2506
perspective in the Coastal Development Permit Review stage on October 7, 2019 (Reference 1).
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoConcepts, Inc.
Raffi Dermendjian Mark A. Barrett
Project Engineer Project Geologist
PE C. 88261 CEG 2088
MAB/RD: 2506-17
Distribution: (1) Addressee
628
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.1
COLOR SLOPE ANALYSIS
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/24
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES
DARK RED AREA = 1:1 SLOPE
MMC 17.40.040.6.e AFFECTS ADJACENT
LOT / ADJACENT NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURES. NO APPLICABLE TO
PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE.
DARK RED AREA = 1:1 SLOPE
MMC 17.40.040.6.e AFFECTS ADJACENTLOT / ADJACENT NEIGHBORINGSTRUCTURES. NO APPLICABLE TOPROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE.
AS NOTED
EXHIBIT G
629
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.2
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
EXHIBIT
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES FE
DC
BA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G
H
I
A
D
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
P P P P
P
M
S
12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 12'-6" 6'-9 1/4" 18'-5 1/2" 12'-6" 12'-6" 15' 55'
15' 55'
5'
6'
36.42'
36.42'
36.50'
36.42' 36.42'
36.33'
36.42' 36.42' 36.42' 36.42' 36.42' 36.42'
36.42'
36.50' 36.50'
36.50'
36.42'
R 61'
N
A-2.1
E
A-2.4
W
A2.2
OH OH OH
+42"
SOLID
OH
OH
ARTIFICIAL GRASS
WATERFALL
@ WALL
JAN
SINK
OUTDOOR
SHOWER
+3'
3' RAISEDPLANTER
7' WALL 7' WALL 7' WALL 7' WALL 7' WALL 7' WALL 7' WALL +3' +3' +3'
TOW39.92' (42")
OH
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTERWALKING ACCESS
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTERWALKING ACCESS
FIRE DEPARTMENT 15
FT SETBACK LINE
7' SCREEN 7' SCREEN
7' SCREEN
7' SCREEN
+42" SOLID
+42" SOLID
+2'
+42"
SOLID
6 x 6 CORNER
POST (STRUCTURAL)
PROPOSED
SIGN
6' HIGH STORAGE
ARTIFICIAL GRASS
OPEN AIR
CORRIDOR
ELEC / LIGHTING /LV PANELS
DN
UP
UP
ADA
UP
2:1 SLOPE
9 R @ 7"
+ 35'-8"
PLANTER
ABOVE DRIVEWAY
RAMP
3036 3036 3036 3036 3036 3036 3036 3036
FX.
-4"
DN
2.0% SLOPE
TILE CONC
FIRE DE
P
T 15 ft.
S
ETB
ACK
5.25%
SLOPE
DN
13 R @ 7"
ADA
1 A-3.1
1 A-3.1
1 A-3.2
1 A-3.2
2 A-3.1
2 A-3.1
#DrgID
#LayID
#DrgID
#LayID
TV
(2) 5080
PKT SLDR
(2) 4680
PKT SLDR
RM 1
11.5' x 18.5' 11.5' x 16'
RM 2
4.75' x 9'
BATH 1
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
9080
SLDR
11.5' x 16'
RM 3
11.5' x 16'
RM 5
11.5' x 16'
RM 4
11.5' x 16'
RM 6
11.5' x 16'
RM 7
11.5' x 16'
RM 8
5' x 7'
MEP
8' x 17'
M
8' x 17'
W
3080
3080
(2) 6480
SLDR
MEP
11.5' x 22'
PREP
KITCHEN
3070
3080
11.5' x 16'
RM 9 12' x 16' RM 10
6.75' x 8.5'
ELE
6.75' x 8.5'
ELEV.
TV
3080
3070
8080
SLDR
9' x 12'
DECK 14' x 14'
DECK
4' VESSEL W/
2 FAUCETS
ADA
ROLL-IN
SHOWER
POND
11.5' x 16' TV
11.5' x 16'
ELEV M.
U/C
REF
+30" BI
DESK
5X7
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
TV
U/C
REF
+30"
DESK
5070
PKT
3070
PKT
3036
GATE
SEAT
4' x 5.5'
WIC
PA
3070
3070
6'CH
6'CH
6' HIGH STORAGE
9' x 28'
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
PLAN
NORTH
TN
S P
36.42'
OH
OH
+2'
ARTIFICI
6.75' x 8.5'
ELEV.
PAS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL
RED AREA OUTLINES THE ELEVATOR
LOBBY (BELOW) FOR GROUND LEVEL
ACCESS ONLY. THIS IS A SINGLE STORY
BUILDING (APPROX. 455 SF.) WITH A
ROOF DECK AND PLANTER.
EDGE OF PATIO DECK ABOVE
PLANTER
ELEV.
UP
ELEV.
DN
AS NOTED
630
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.3
PROPOSED NORTH AND
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES
C-2 A-3 F-12 F-13 C-17 A-19
1/2" 10'-6" 2' 8' 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-8 3/4" 8'-6 1/4"
44'-1 1/2"
23.96'24.00'34.50'36.50'44.50'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.57'
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT 68.08'
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FINISH GRADE
TUNNEL
TO
GARAGE
D-19 F-17 F-16 F-14 F-13 F-12 F-12 F-3 E-3 F-2 F-1
26'-3" 8' 2'-7" 2'-8 3/4" 8'-6"
48'-1"
20.00'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.57'68.08'
21'-11"
GLASSGUARDRAIL
GLASS
GLASS GUARDRAIL
GUARDRAIL
ELEV
SHAFT
TOP OF
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
TOP OF
POOL DECK
TOP OF
ROOF DECK
CEILING @
2ND LEVEL
FF @
2ND LEVEL
FF @ GARAGE
NAT. GRADE
21'-11"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" S SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" N NORTH ELEVATION 24' MAX
HEIGHT
VHICULAR INGRESS PEDESTRIAN EGRESS
AS NOTED
*REFER TO SHEETS A-8.4 AND A-8.5 FOR MAX HEIGHT LIMITS
SYMBOL LEGEND
BUILDING AREA ABV FINISHED FLOOR / GRADEAREA BELOW NATURAL GRADENATURAL GRADE24' MAX HT FROM FF/ FGFINISHED FLOOR / GRADE 631
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.4
PROPOSED EAST
ELEVATION EXHIBIT
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES
A-19 B-18 C-17 D-17 F-17
1/2" 9' 1'-6" 8' 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-8 3/4"
42'-1 1/2"
25.96'26.00'35.00'36.50'44.50'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.34'68.08' 21'-11"
24.26'
20.00'
1/2" 10'-6" 2' 8' 1'-9" 23.96' 24.00' 34.50' 36.50' 44.50'
46.25'
8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-8 3/4" 59.34'
68.08'56.83'54.25'
48'-1"
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FINISH GRADE
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBYFF @ GARAGE
24 FT. ABOVE. EXIST. NAT. GRADE
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFTTOP OF POOL DECKTOP OF ROOF DECKCEILING @ 2ND LEVEL FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FINISH GRADE
TEMP
GLASS
TEMP
GLASS
A-19 B-18 C-17 D-17 F-17
1/2" 9' 1'-6" 8' 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-8 3/4"
42'-1 1/2"
25.96'26.00'35.00'36.50'44.50'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.34'68.08' 21'-11"
24.26'
20.00'
1/2" 10'-6" 2' 8' 1'-9" 23.96' 24.00' 34.50' 36.50' 44.50'
46.25'
8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-8 3/4" 59.34'
68.08'56.83'54.25'
48'-1"
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FINISH GRADE
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBYFF @ GARAGE
24 FT. ABOVE. EXIST. NAT. GRADE
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFTTOP OF POOL DECKTOP OF ROOF DECKCEILING @ 2ND LEVEL FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FINISH GRADE
TEMP
GLASS
TEMP
GLASS
26'
TEMP
GLASS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" E EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" E EAST ELEVATION
REFER TO ENLARGED
ELEVATION BELOW
BUILDING OUTLINE IN
BACKGROUND
AS NOTED
SYMBOL LEGEND
BUILDING AREA ABV FINISHED FLOOR / GRADEAREA BELOW NATURAL GRADENATURAL GRADE24' MAX HT FROM FF/ FGFINISHED FLOOR / GRADE 24' MAX
HEIGHT
632
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.5
PROPOSED WEST
ELEVATION EXHIBIT
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES G-1 F-12 E-3 D-3 C-3 B-17 A-3
3'-11 1/2" 1/2" 10'-6" 2' 8' 1'-2" 7" 8' 2'-7" 2'-8 3/4" 20.00' 23.96' 24.00' 34.50' 36.50' 44.50' 45.67' 46.25' 54.25' 56.83'
59.57'68.08'
15 ft. FD SETBACK FOR LADDER 28 FT. WIDTH FD DRIVEWAY
8'-6"
44'-1 1/2"
2'
GARAGEOUTLINE
WQMD PLANTERS
PLASTER
1.5 : 1 Slope
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FF @ GARAGE
TOP OF GUARD RAIL
AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE
TO GARAGE
TEMP
GLASS
PROPOSED T.O. RET. WALL IN FOREGROUND OMITTED FORCLARITY EXIST. NAT. GRADE
FINISH GRADE
G-1 F-12 E-3 D-3 C-3 B-17 A-3
3'-11 1/2" 1/2" 10'-6" 2' 8' 1'-2" 7" 8' 2'-7" 2'-8 3/4" 20.00' 23.96' 24.00' 34.50' 36.50' 44.50' 45.67' 46.25' 54.25' 56.83'
59.57'68.08'
15 ft. FD SETBACK FOR LADDER 28 FT. WIDTH FD DRIVEWAY
8'-6"
44'-1 1/2"
2'
22959 PCH - PARKING LOT 3'-5" SIDEWALK PCH
VARIES
30" MAX
3'-6"
GARAGEOUTLINE
WQMD PLANTERS
PLASTER
1.5 : 1 Slope
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FF @ GARAGE
TOP OF GUARD RAIL
AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE
TO GARAGE
TEMP
GLASS
PROPOSED T.O. RET. WALL
IN FOREGROUND OMITTED FORCLARITY
PCH
PL
EXIST. NAT. GRADE
FINISH GRADE
TEMP
GLASS
PROPOSED T.O. RET. WALL
IN FOREGROUND OMITTED FOR CLARITY
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" W WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" W WEST ELEVATION
24' MAX
HEIGHT
REFER TO ENLARGED
ELEVATION BELOW
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING OUTLINE INBACKGROUND
BUILDING OUTLINE INBACKGROUND
(N) GRADING PER CIVIL
DWGS. SHT. 2 OF 3
AS NOTED
SYMBOL LEGEND
BUILDING AREA ABV FINISHED FLOOR / GRADEAREA BELOW NATURAL GRADENATURAL GRADE24' MAX HT FROM FF/ FGFINISHED FLOOR / GRADE 633
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.6
PROPOSED SECTIONS
EXHIBIT
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES
3'-11 1/2"1/2" 11' 1'-5" 8'-1" 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-9" 48'-1"
20.00'23.96'24.00'35.00'36.42'44.50'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.34'68.08' 3'-11 1/2" 1/2" 11' 1'-5" 8'-1" 1'-9" 8' 2'-7" 2'-6" 8'-9" 48'-1"
20.00'23.96'24.00'35.00'36.42'44.50'46.25'54.25'56.83'59.34'68.08'
49.67'
10'
5'
+42"GUARDRAIL
+42"GUARDRAIL
+42"GUARDRAIL
+42"GUARDRAIL
GARAGE
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFTTOP OF POOL DECKTOP OF ROOF DECKCEILING @ 2ND LEVEL FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBYFF @ LOBBYFINISH GRADEFF @ GARAGE
TOP OF ELEVATOR SHAFT
TOP OF POOL DECK
TOP OF ROOF DECK
CEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
FF @ 2ND LEVEL
CEILING @ 1ST LEVEL
FF @ 1ST LEVEL
CEILING @ LOBBY
FF @ LOBBY
FINISH GRADE
FF @ GARAGE
T.O RAILING
COMPACT CAR
NAT. GRADE
34'-3" 2'-7" 3'-6"
40'-4"
23.96'
MIN. 15' PER BLDG CODE
43'-4"
2'-6"
4'
23'-11"
70.00'
8'
20.00'
50'
24'
17'-1/2"
28'
15'
PCH SIDEWALK 3'-5"
2'-6" 3'-6"
6'
15'
6'
9'-3"
+42"
GATE
7' SOLID
WALL
7'
SCREEN
DEBRIS
PROTECTION
(PER GEOLOGY)
PLATE STEEL
STRUCTURE
(GRASS-CRETEPARKING SURFACE)
AVERAGE FINISH GRADE = + 46
AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE HEIGHT
FYSB LINES
TOP OF ROOF DECK
GARAGE
FINISH GRADE
TOP OF REAR GUARD RAILTOP OF POOL GUARD RAILTOP OF ROOF DECKCEILING @ 2ND LEVEL
PARKING AREA
24 ' ABV.
NAT. GRADE
NAT. GRADE
PCH
FIRE DEPT DRIVEWAY
LAWN
(ARTIFICIAL GRASS) RM 4 BATH 4 RM 4 DECK
SPA POOL
FIRE DEPT REQ'D
SETBACK
PL
VOIDVOID
STORAGE
FIRE DEPT REQ'D
SETBACK
L.I.D.PLANTERS
8'
ENTGRADEHEIGHT
SPA POOL
L.I.D.PLANTERS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION BSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION A 24' MAX
HEIGHT
24' MAX
HEIGHT
RETAINING WALL
IN BACKGROUND
RETAINING WALLDEBRIS FENCE(NON-SOLID FENCE)EX. NATURAL GRADE RANGE OF 21/2:1 TO 1:1 REFER TO SHEET T1.4FOR SLOPE ANALYSIS.FREEBOARD EX. NATURAL GRADERANGE OF 2 1/2:1 TO 1:1REFER TO SHEET T1.4FOR SLOPE ANALYSIS.
SYMBOL LEGEND
BUILDING AREA ABV FINISHED FLOOR / GRADEAREA BELOW NATURAL GRADENATURAL GRADE24' MAX HT FROM FF/ FGFINISHED FLOOR / GRADE
AS NOTED
634
GSPublisherVersion 1367.4.72.32
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-2024-01-31.pln
2/1/24
A-8.7
PROPOSED SECTIONS
EXHIBIT
22959 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2/1/
2 4
1 4 ADD
ITIO
NAL PARKING SPACES
30"
20.00'
23.96'
PCH SIDEWALK 3'-5" 22959 PCH - PARKING LOT
VARIES
MAX 30"
3'-6"
42'-6"
RET WALL
GARAGE
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
ELEVATOR LOBBY
MAIN LEVEL
DECK
M
RESTROOM
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
RM
18 ADA
BATH
ROOF
DECK
(F.D)
WALKWAY
NAT. GRADE
ELEVATOR
PIT
DEBRIS
PROTECTION
NAT. GRADE
PCH
PL
16'-11"
ELEVATOR
SHAFT
RM
18 ADA
BATH
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION C
24' MAX
HEIGHT RETAINING WALL
DEBRIS FENCE(NON-SOLID FENCE)EX. NATURAL GRADE RANGE OF2 1/2:1 TO 1:1 REFER TO SHEETT1.4 FOR SLOPE ANALYSIS.FREEBOARD ELEV.
LOBBY
SYMBOL LEGEND
BUILDING AREA ABV FINISHED FLOOR / GRADEAREA BELOW NATURAL GRADENATURAL GRADE24' MAX HT FROM FF/ FGFINISHED FLOOR / GRADE
AS NOTED
635
• WWW.KFSENG.COM •
17547 VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 302 • ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91316 • T 818-874-1445 530 TECHNOLOGY DR, SUITE 100 & 200, IRVINE, CA 92618
310 SW 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 404, PORTLAND, OR 97204
February 11, 2022
Steven Hakim
9350 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
P 310-393-5800 C 310-908-7300
F 310-393-1292
E [email protected]
Project: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90265
Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering Inc. KFSE Job No. 18061.00 Subject: Planning Commission Response
At your request, KFSE has created a structural response to the request from the planning commission request for clarification on min setback requirements for descending slopes. The proposed new structure will be subject to the requirements of the California building code. That current code is the 2019 California Building Code. Section 1808.7 Foundations on or adjacent to the slopes provides the requirements for hillside setbacks. All new structures are subject to this requirement unless alternate setback clearances are granted per section 1808.7.5. Figure 1808.7.1 of the California building code provides guidance on the setback requirements. In addition to the California building code figure. Los Angeles department of building and safety has provided a public bulletin P/BC 2020-001 which helps interpret the setbacks. Although the project is not within the jurisdiction of LADBS the document helps clarify section 1808.7 of the California Building Code. Many other adjacent jurisdictional authorities have created a similar information bulletin.
We have included that P/BC 2020-001 as appendix A.
Sincerely,
Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering, Inc.
Kurt Fischer, Lic. # S5432
636
EXHIBIT H
22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Planning Commission Response
KFSE Job No. 18061.00
February 11, 2022
• WWW.KFSENG.COM •
17547 VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 302 • ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91316 • T 818-874-1445 208 SW 1st AVE, SUITE 220 • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 • T 503-272-6675 APPENDIX A – P/BC 2020-001
637
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
FOOTING/BUILDING SETBACKS FROM SLOPES
The placement of buildings and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical shall be in accordance with Section 1808.7 of the Building Code. When a geology and/or soils report is required by the Department, the setbacks prescribed by the code shall be considered sufficient only when the report has addressed the following:
1. The static, seismic (when required), and surficial stability of the slope. The factor of safety must meet a minimum of 1.5 for static and 1.0 for seismic.
2. The kinematic stability (when required) of rock slopes. The factor of safety must meet a minimum of
1.5 for potential planar, wedge, and/or topple failures where the kinematic analyses has demonstrated the geometric potential of such failure modes to occur.
3. The erosion potential of the soils. Appropriate mitigation measures must be provided as necessary.
4. The adequate performance of similar slopes in the general area.
5. Appropriate surface water drainage provisions.
6. Debris/mud flow potential.
Figures 1 through 8 show standard methods of providing the code required setback for buildings and footings for all structures except pools.
Figure 1 (Section 1808.7.1)
INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC - BUILDING CODE
REFERENCE NO.: LAMC 1808.7 Effective: 01-01-2020
DOCUMENT NO. P/BC 2020-001 Revised:
Previously Issued As: P/BC 2017-001
FACE OF
FOOTING
PROPOSED
STRUCTURES
* The ground surface within the H/2 setback distance
between the building and toe of slope, shall not be a
sloping surface. A sloping surface shall be defined as a surface inclined at greater than 10%. (Section 7003)
TOP OF
SLOPE
1 <3
STABILIZATION
PILES/ DEEP
FOUNDATION
H
H/2*
H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED
15 FEET (4572 mm) MAX.
TOE OF SLOPE
FACE OF PROP.
BUILDING
H/3
H/3 BUT NEED
NOT EXCEED 40
FEET (12192 mm)
MAX.
H/3
638
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
H 1
<3
H/3 NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET
H/2 NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H 1
<3
Figure 3 (Section 1808.7.1)
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE
H/2 NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <1
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET H
1 <1 H/3
Figure 4 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 5 (Section 1808.7.2) Figure 2 (Section 1808.7.2)
Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (45 degrees), then the setback is measured from an imaginary line projected at an angle of 45 degrees and tangent to the slope (see Figures 4 & 5). 639
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
PROJECTION OF A 1:1 PLANE FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FEET H
1 <1 H/3
Figure 6 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 7 (Section 1808.7.1) Figure 8 (Section 1808.7.1)
The H/2 level setback may be partitioned into a maximum of two adjoining levels by the use of retaining walls, such that when the two levels are added together they equal the distance H/2 (as shown in Figure 8). Where the H/2 distance is less than or equal to 5 feet, only one level is allowed.
As shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, the building shall be provided with a level setback area from the ascending slope. The toe of the slope shall not be located against the building wall.
H/2
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <3
RETAINING WALL
NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT H/2
FACE OF PROP. BUILDING
H
1 <3
COMPACTED FILL FINISHED LEVEL
RETAINING WALL
H
H/2*
PROPOSED
BUILDING
* NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FEET
640
P/BC 2020-001
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities.
Figure 9 (Section 1808.7.3) Figure 10 (Section 1808.7.3) Figure 11 (Section 1808.7.3)
CLEARANCE = H/4, MAX. 7 1/2 FEET
H
1 <3
H/4
Figure 12 (Section 1808.7.3)
Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 show how the standard setback can be provided for pools adjacent to a slope steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical but less than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1, the setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane projected at an angle of 45 degrees and tangent to the slope. In addition to the footing setback, any portion of the pool wall within 7 feet of the top of the slope shall be designed for a freestanding condition, without soil support (see Figure 10). * The spring line is defined as the location on the pool shell where it changes curvature away from the adjacent slope. In addition, the pool clearance dimension is measured to the outside of the pool shell not the inside finished surface.
SPRING LINE*
H
1 <3 H/6
SETBACK = H/6 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 20'
(MEASURED FROM THE POOL SPRING LINE)
Free Standing Design for walls beyond
this line
H
1 <3
7' SETBACK
H/4
H
1 <3
RETAINING WALL
CLEARANCE = H/4, MAX. 7 1/2 FEET SPRING LINE*
H
1 <3 H/6
SETBACK = H/6 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 20'
(MEASURED FROM THE POOL SPRING LINE)
641
22435 PCH.
22601 PCH.
22741 PCH.
22065 PCH.
4451-011-905
22809 PCH.
PROPOSED
22959 PCH.
TALL RETAINING WALLS ALONG PCH
APPROVED 18 - 41 FT. RETAINING WALLS IN THE CITY OF MALIBU
EXHIBIT I
642
22065 PCH.
Built in 2006 (Coastal Commission Permit 5-90-265)
Approved by City Council in 2003, up to 41 C. high retaining walls 13,000 cu. yds. grading (including 5,000 cu. yds. remedial grading for landslide). 22065 PCH
643
Notice of Exemption
To: O Office of Planning and
1400 Tenth Street, Roy
Sacramento, CA 9581
D County Clerk
County of Los Angeles
P.O. Box 1024
Norwalk, CA 90651-1024
From
JUN 1 3 2006
~~TY CLERKS OFFICE
City of Malibu
Planning Division
of Malibu
15 Stuart Ranch Road
ibu, CA 90265
Project Title: Coastal Development Permit No. 05-075. Site Plan Review Nos. 06-006. 06-007, and 06-008, and Variance Nos. 03-013 and 03-014
Project Location —Specific: 22435 Pacific Coast Highway Project Loca#ion —City: Malibu Project Location -- County: Los Angeles Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: An application for the construction of a new. two-story. 7,330 square foot single-_family residence with a 3,462 square foot basement. not to exceed 28-feet in height. Landscaping, hardscape (including a driveway and fire department turnaround) grading fences walls and an alternative onsite wastewater treatment system are also proposed. Site plan reviews are requested for heicaht above 18-feet. construction on slopes greater than 2'/2 to 1, and remedial grading. Variances are requested for construction on slopes exceeding 2'h to 1 and for retaining wall height over six-feet.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Malibu Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Norman Haynie on behalf of property owner Blue Onyx Design and EnQineerinq. Inc.
Exempt Status: (check one)
O Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268):
O Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)):
D Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)):
D Categorical Exemption; Type and section number: 15303 O Statutory Exemptions; Code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: The project consists of a new single-family residence and associated development. As such. the project is consistent with the classes of projects described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (e) that are considered exempt from further CEQA review. None of the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 apps. No potentially significant impacts will result from the project. either singularly or cumulativelLr.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Joshua Hart Telephone Number: (310) 456-2489 ext. 250 Signature: Title: Senior Planner
Joshua Hart
Q Signed by Lead Agency FILL~ceived for filing at OPR:
O Signed by Applicant
MAY 1 ~ 2006
0 6 0 ~J X 0 2 9 3 CONNY~, MoCgRMACK, C~UN'fYCI.EHK
<< P ~ M. SMITH p
Date: March 21.2006
'r~s N wAs posr~n
ox ~A~ 112006
cn~r, ~1(1N ~ ~ ~M~
~~-RECORDF.R/OpUNTY OAK
22435 PCH.
22435 PCH (CDP 05-075)
Approved in 2006, 18 1 retaining wall & 30,000 cu. yds. grading, construc>on on slope exceeding 2 1/2 to 1 644
22601 PCH.
22601 PCH.
Built in 1991. Coastal Commission Permit 5-87-132
35,374 sq. <. 16,204 cu. yds. grading, 15 7 height retaining walls 645
+21.50'
+70.70'
+44.30'
+19.00'
+58.30'
+33.00'
+44.70'
+58.00'
+46.30'
+82.70'
+96.20'
+46.30'
(N) BASEMENT
LOBBY
001
(N) OPEN LOBBY
101
+10.00'
(N) ROOM
204
(N) OPEN LOBBY
304 (E) GARAGE
(N) ROOM
405
(E) ROOF AND
PARAPET TERRACE
701
+68.10'
(E) PARKING
12'-0"
10'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6"
11'-3 1/2"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-0"
(N) PARKING
(N) TERRACE
(N) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE
(N) TRELLIS
EASEMENT
11'-0"
8'-6" MAX
PROPERTY LINE
74'-9"
NEW HOTEL BUILDING
116'-0"
EXISTING BUILDING (REMODEL TO HOTEL GUEST ROOMS)
6'-0"
(N) BALCONY
24'-3 1/2"
28' ABOVE EXISTING OR
FINISH GRADE SURFACE,
WHICHEVER IS LOWER
POOL EQUIPMENT AND A.C.
EXISTING GRADE WHERE
THE ELEVATOR IS LOCATED
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION B-B'
A3.11
SECTIONS
MALIBU
SEA VIEW
HOTEL
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE
PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF THE CURRENT
OWNER AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY
OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN
AGREEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT.
PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
22741 / 22729 PCH
MALIBU, CA 90265
ISSUANCE:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
03/04/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
8/25/2017 10:20 AM
HATCH LEGEND
03/25/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
04/04/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
04/14/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
08/09/17 PLANNING DEPT SUB
EXISTING WALLS
NEW WALLS
LANDSCAPE AREA
Blue Onyx Design & Engineering, Inc.
22741 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400, Malibu CA 90265 310-456-5515
16654 SOLEDAD CANYON RD. #505
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91387
08/28/17 08/17/17
22741 PCH.
21 $ retaining walls
22741 PCH.
21 ft.
Ret.
Walls
Approx.
65 ft.
CDP Approved for the Proposed Hotel 2022
646
22809 PCH
26 FT RETAINING WALL
22809 PCH
647
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
From: Adam Kahan
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 1:36 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Adam Kahan, and I am a resident of Malibu, living at Pacific Coast Highway. As a local, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Malibu Inn Motel project.
Malibu is a beautiful city that attracts numerous tourists every year, who come to enjoy our pristine beaches, natural beauty, and vibrant local culture. However, there is a scarcity of high‐quality hotel options in the area, which leaves visitors with limited choices for accommodations. The Malibu Inn Motel project promises to address this issue by providing a top‐notch lodging option for travelers, thereby fostering tourism and benefitting local businesses.
I am particularly excited about the prospect of having a new hotel in Malibu where my friends can stay when they come to visit. Furthermore, and on a more selfish note the Malibu Inn Motel will finally bring in a new cool venue locals like myself can use to socialize, creating a vibrant and welcoming atmosphere that will enrich our community. As we all know it's not very often something new pops up around here.
I wholeheartedly support the Malibu Inn Motel project and urge the Planning Commission to approve its construction.
As a resident of Malibu, I believe this hotel will contribute significantly to our community's economic vitality, create job opportunities, cater to the needs of our visitors, and provide a new gathering place for locals.
Thank you for considering my input on this matter, and I hope you will take into account the numerous benefits that the Malibu Inn Motel can bring to our beautiful city.
Sincerely,
Adam Kahan
Malibu, CA
EXHIBIT J
648
1 Planning Commission
From: Alina Korsunsky >
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 1:29 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Hi,
My name is Alina Korsunska. I have watched the previous hearings and read the staff report and am in support of this project. As someone who lives close by, I love what the developer is bringing to this community. We need more hotel and motel rooms and this is exactly what the coastal commission keeps asking for. I also read the coastal commissions letter which also shows their support for the project. I see that the property is zoned for this, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t approve it. I would love to have a place for visitors to be able to stay when they come to visit, and I think everyone is tired of having their neighbors house filled with strangers and new airbnb guests every week. Let’s approve this project for its merits. They are staying within the guidelines of the FAR and they should be commended after putting in so much time on a winning project for the City.
Thank you,
Alina Korsunska
649
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Letter re: April 17, 2023 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 5.B Attachments: 2023-04-13 M. Camp Ltr. re Malibu Inn Motel.pdf From: Brittani A. Jackson
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Marshall A. Camp ; Amber Munoz
Subject: Letter re: April 17, 2023 Malibu Planning Commission Meeting ‐ Agenda Item 5.B Chair Smith and City Staff,
Please find aƩached a leƩer submiƩed in connecƟon with the April 17, 2023 meeƟng of the Malibu Planning Commission, Agenda Item 5.B (Malibu Inn Motel). We respecƞully request that this leƩer be distributed to the Members of the Commission and be made part of the record for the April 17, 2023 meeƟng.
Thank you,
BriƩani
Brittani A. Jackson
___________________________________
HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information.
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
650
MARSHALL A. CAMP
Partner
April 13, 2023
VIA E-MAIL
Dennis Robert Smith, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265-4861
[email protected]
Re: April 17, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item 5.B – Malibu Inn Motel Dear Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Mani Brothers Real Estate Group and affiliated companies that own properties in the vicinity of the proposed Malibu Inn Motel (“Malibu Inn”), including the Malibu Beach Inn, located at 22878 PCH; the former Hertz lot at 22853 PCH; and the multifamily properties at 22640 and 22648 PCH (collectively, the “Mani Brothers”).
The Mani Brothers oppose the Malibu Inn, including the entitlements and approvals sought in connection with Agenda Item 5.B. at the April 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. Grounds for the opposition include, without limitation, the following:
1. Project Exceeds the Maximum Allowable Height and Stories: The April 4, 2023 Agenda Report prepared by Adrian Fernandez (“Agenda Report”) erroneously describes the Malibu Inn as a “twostory motel” when it is in fact four stories. (See, e.g., Agenda Report at 12.) The maximum height allowed for a new commercial building under the Malibu Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”) is 24 feet and two stories. (LIP § 3.8(A)(1)(b).) The LCP defines a “story” as, “that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the roof above.” (LIP § 2.1; see also MMC
12.02.060.) The Agenda Report appears to consider the lobby floor below the “finished or natural grade” and thus only considers the two floors above to be “stories” for the purpose of its analysis. (See Agenda Report at 12 (noting that the “motel would reach a height of two stories or up to 24 feet above finished or natural grade,” with the “subterranean parking . . . to be notched into the hillside”).) But the bottom and rooftop floors are “stories” under relevant law, resulting in a project over 40 feet tall.
First, the bottom floor is a “story.” At the base of the Malibu Inn is the entry lobby and reception area, together with an enclosed parking garage. The only justification offered for not considering the bottom floor a story is, as has been noted in prior Agenda Reports, that the bottom story is a 651
Mr. Smith, Chair
April 13, 2023