Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variances for proposed senior living project at 22549 PCH
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to deny key variances and related approvals for a proposed four-bed residential care facility at 22549 PCH, citing inability to make required findings on large retaining walls, slope and ESHA buffer impacts and concerns about on-site safety and precedent.
The Malibu City Planning Commission voted Feb. 2 to deny the requested variances and related approvals for a proposed 4-bed residential care facility at 22549 Pacific Coast Highway, concluding the commission could not make necessary findings for the project’s large retaining walls, slope variances and ESHA buffer encroachment.
Staff presented a full project package that requested a Local Coastal Program amendment, zoning map amendment, coastal development permit, three variances (including retaining walls up to 24 feet and an 11-foot impact wall), site plan review for a 24-foot building height and a conditional use permit to allow an RCFE in the proposed CC zone. The applicant, Anita Kunde, told the commission the small facility would provide needed senior beds and that the project team (including geotechnical and structural engineers) had concluded the site was feasible and not a coastal bluff.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns during deliberations: fire safety and evacuation access on a single driveway with a required hammerhead turnaround; the extreme scale of retaining walls required to hold back the hillside; development within and near ESHA buffer areas and the risk of creating a precedent for similar high-variance projects. Several commissioners said the project, as presented, represented an overbuilt solution for the lot and that alternative locations might better serve the community need.
Commissioner John (speaker 4) moved to deny the project based on inability to make the required findings for the retaining-wall variances, slope variance and ESHA variance; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call. The transcript records staff will prepare a resolution matching the commission's direction and the item may be appealed to the City Council as provided by local procedures.
Provenance: The staff presentation, applicant testimony, public comment (none for this item), commissioner questioning, and the denial motion were all recorded in the Feb. 2 meeting transcript for agenda item 4C.
