Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Widening De Minimis Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission receives and files de minimis waiver for driveway widening amid neighbor concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission received and filed the planning director's decision approving a de minimis waiver to widen a driveway at 33955 Pacific Coast Highway. Neighbors raised concerns about work extending onto adjacent property and potential grade transitions; the commission accepted staff's recommendation and recorded a vote.
The Malibu Planning Commission on April 7 received and filed the planning director’s decision approving De Minimis Waiver 24-005, an application to widen an existing driveway for a Woolsey Fire–affected parcel at 33955 Pacific Coast Highway.
The item drew a Zoom speaker, Solomon, the general contractor for 33955, who said he had attempted to contact the neighboring property and that the driveway widening was required by the fire department to meet emergency access standards. “When we widen it, if we stop where the driveway turns, we may not be able to transition the grade for the benefit of the homeowner at 33961,” Solomon said, explaining the need to taper the widened section to avoid a steep drop-off.
Staff told the commission an attorney for the neighbor had submitted a letter asking for a delay and requested a condition limiting the improvement to the turnout at 33955 Pacific Coast Highway. Tyler, the case planner, said staff could reissue a revised notice of decision if needed, but the planning director’s decision is generally not appealable and a de minimis waiver is handled under the LIP. Commissioners discussed whether adding a condition that the widening stop at the turnout would create a grade/feasibility problem for the adjacent parcel and could conflict with fire department requirements.
After public comment and planner responses, a commissioner moved to receive and file the planning director’s report as recommended. The motion carried on a roll call vote; the tally recorded four yes votes and one abstention. The planning director’s decision stands as filed; staff indicated they could issue a revised notice of decision to clarify where the widening must stop if the parties reach agreement.
The planning commission did not conduct a full hearing on the merits because the waiver was handled administratively; the commission’s action was to accept the director’s record. Staff noted a pending period for any administrative review timelines mentioned in municipal code section 17.40.220, but indicated de minimis waivers are processed under Chapter 13.27 of the LIP and not all director decisions are appealable.
Vote: receive-and-file motion carried (yes 4; abstain 1).
