The decision by Judge Janavs to deny challenges to the Malibu City Council’s approval of the Forge Lodge development was wrong in logic and in interpretation of the facts. I am a 15-year resident of the Malibu Bowl. I was one of several homeowners who testified last year against the Forge Lodge proposal because of its size and its likely negative impact on Solstice Creek. We all voiced concerns about the impact that squeezing seven new buildings, each with four condominium-sized apartments, would have on the environment surrounding the Forge’s four acre parcel, particularly in light of the variance sought by the Forges to encroach on the 100-foot setback normally required. Judge Janavs was wrong to hold harmless the “technical violation” that Councilman Jennings initiated. The violation was a remarkable exception to the usual procedure of closing off public comment for good before council deliberations and a vote. City council members Stern, Barovsky and Kearsley had just voted in favor of reducing the size of each proposed apartment from 680 to 480 square feet each, to allow the approved project to better conform to City requirements for setbacks. City council members House and Jennings had dissented. Architect Barsocchini, representing the Forges, then passed a note to the City Manager who then passed it to Council member Jennings, which he examined momentarily and then waved in the air. He announced that this note was evidence that the reduced design was architecturally infeasible and therefore spelled the end of the Forges’ dream of building a “bed and breakfast” in Malibu. He further asserted that the Forges were willing to go with a middle-of-the-road compromise of 580 square feet per unit, if the Council were willing to take another vote. The Council acquiesced to this unusual breach of protocol and took another vote that resulted in 20.8% more square footage per unit.
Every member of the City Council was complicit in sustaining the fiction that what the Forges were requesting to build was a hotel, not a bed and breakfast facility. If a reduction of 100 square feet is significant mitigation, then the further reduction by another 100 square feet would also constitute significant mitigation. Both the outcome and the process associated with the Forge Lodge approval harmed the community and violated the law. This impression of mine will be further corroborated when an appeals court overturns Judge Janavs’ illogical decisions in this case.
William J. McCarthy