Despite the fact that the inn had operated for more than a decade as a late-night establishment, many residents appealed the permit because they say it would cause safety problems and noise.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
Despite vociferous opposition from locals residents, the City Council Monday night approved a conditional use permit for the Malibu Inn. Residents had appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the permit, which will allow the restaurant and nightclub to operate with a full liquor license between 7 a.m. and 2 a.m. So many public speakers voiced their opinion on the matter that there was not enough time for the council to vote on the agenda item concerning vacating portions of Rambla Pacifico Road. That matter was continued until the next scheduled council meeting on Jan. 10.
Mayor Jefferson Wagner recused himself from the vote on the Malibu Inn permit, citing a conflict of interest because his business, Zuma Jay’s Surfshop, is located close to the inn. City staff had recommended denial of the appeal because the new proprietor, Kambiz Hakim, had met conditions for operation, including concerns of noise abatement and limited parking.
However, appellants Robert J. Allan and Klaus Obermeyer, who live across from the inn on Pacific Coast Highway (the Malibu Pier is located directly across the highway from the inn, and homes nearest to it are located north of the pier), say they are dismayed by the prospect of loud music, inn patrons parking in front of their homes and the danger of tipsy club-goers exiting at 2 a.m. on an already troubled highway.
“When the Malibu Inn was the Crazy Horse, a family restaurant, I used to eat there three times a week,” Allan said. “But this new plan crams 300 people into a bar for large events where liquor is served every night till 2 a.m. This is a public safety issue.”
The Malibu Inn has operated at its current location for more than a decade with an alcohol and entertainment permit that allowed it to be open until 2 a.m. It closed in 2008 when co-owner Mitchell Stewart died. Stewart and his wife Nurit Petri had bought the inn in 2002. Hakim bought it at a foreclosure auction in January 2009 for a reported $5.3 million.
Attorney Stephen Sandler, representing Obermeyer, acknowledged that Malibu Inn operations might bring much needed tax revenues to the city, but said the costs in terms of safety and litigation override immediate fiscal benefits. He urged that the matter be turned over to the city’s Public Safety Commission.
Elizabeth Peterson, speaking for Stephen and Alex Hakim, said the young businessmen had spent a great deal of time looking into how the Malibu Inn had historically operated as a family-style restaurant and planned to maintain that appeal.
“Live entertainment will represent a very small percentage of their business model,” Peterson said. “The Hakims want to run a quality, affordable restaurant that also showcases local talent and provides a venue for Malibu youth to enjoy themselves instead of taking their business to Santa Monica or the Valley or even Hollywood.”
Peterson emphasized how hard the Hakims had worked to make their proposal compliant with all conditions relative to security, parking availability, wastewater disposal, sound mitigation and even training staff on limiting service to alcohol-impaired patrons.
Several Malibu residents, from a Pepperdine University law student to surfer/entertainer Skylar Peak spoke in support of Malibu Inn as a late-night venue.
“The security plan the Malibu Inn is proposing is more detailed than anything else you will find in Malibu,” Peak said.
Many other residents, however, would have none of it.
Gary Salomon, who lives next to Allan, questioned the parking space math.
“They have 53 parking spaces for a capacity crowd of 340 people,” Salomon said. “That’s like seven people per vehicle. It’s unrealistic. You have to consider the vandalism and noise that is going to occur with such a crowd late at night.”
The council also wondered how the Public Safety Commission could impact approval of the CUP and questioned the efficacy of the inn’s proposed security plan when only one guard is proposed for every 50 patrons.
Councilmember Lou La Monte remarked, ”We might take in more tax dollars, but they will all go to contracting for more Sheriff’s deputies.”
Peterson reminded the council that they could review the CUP in six months.
City Attorney Christi Hogin warned that the city could revoke a CUP in the future based only on non-compliance of conditions originally set, so it would behoove the council to set all conditions prior to issuance.
Ultimately, the council voted to deny the appeal, allowing the Malibu Inn to operate conditionally, including changing the operating hours until 2 a.m. Thursdays through Saturdays (and Sundays when the following Monday is a holiday), with a cut-off time of 1 a.m. for serving alcohol, and midnight Sundays through Wednesdays, with a cut-off for alcohol service at 11 p.m. They also required that the Sheriff’s Department approve the inn’s security plan.