The problem with the inn





Mary Hubbard’s now famous letter on the Malibu Valley Inn contained the following points that the judge reviewed and considered valid. To me, they are more than sufficient reason to vote no on the inn.

Over 3,000 additional weekend car trips and almost 2,000 weekday car trips per day on Las Virgenes/Malibu Canyon Road would create even worse traffic backups and smog and might cost taxpayers millions for unmitigated and under-funded improvements.

The annexation proposal goes against the Los Angeles County North Area Plan and the Calabasas General Plan, which state that annexation should not occur for the purpose of increasing density, that development must conform to the land and that resource protection has priority over development.

The inn and spa is two times larger than The Commons. Unlike The Commons, however, it is not in the right location. This dense urban development is not compatible with state and national parkland on a scenic highway in the heart of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This development is not an “equestrian resort.” Of the commercial project area, 91 percent is devoted to hotel rooms, a huge convention center, restaurants with liquor licenses, offices and retail use and just nine percent is for spa, tennis and swimming usage.

Where are the horse facilities?

They already exist—on Stokes Canyon Road. They don’t justify a 341,000-square-foot hotel/convention center, however, especially since they are operating in violation of Coastal Zone regulations.

The threat of 81 homes is overstated. The developer does not have a coastal permit for any development within the Coastal Zone. Nicolas Noxon Agoura


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *