Agenda — Malibu City Council, February 27, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: February 8, 2023 Meeting date: February 27, 2023 Subject: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to increase the total agreement compensation from $190,000 to $340,000 and extend the term of the agreement oneyear so that it will now expire June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding will be included in the Mid-Year Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in Account No. 101-3003-5100 (Clean Water).

WORK PLAN: This item was not included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. This is part of normal City operations.

DISCUSSION: On June 28, 2021, the City entered into an agreement with Rincon to provide on-call / as needed environmental services, such as stormwater management, water quality compliance, and general project management. On May 23, 2022, due to unforeseen events, such as emergency stormwater response, increased inspections for illicit discharges and site BMPs, and key employee departures, the Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the contract increasing the total compensation $40,000 to $190,000. Because of continued staff vacancies, and the heavy rains this season, staff has utilized Rincon more than expected. To consistently meet regulatory requirements and to provide essential customer service, staff will be recommending appropriating an additional $150,000, in the Mid-Year Budget, to increase the total agreement compensation from $190,000 to $340,000.

Staff is also requesting Council extend the term of the original on-call Agreement through June 30, 2024. Extending the current agreement will ensure continuity of environmental services.

City Council Meeting
02-27-23
Item

3.B.8.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.

ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc.

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Malibu on February 27, 2023 by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, hereinafter referred to as City, and Rincon Consultants, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Consultant.

The City and the Consultant agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A. On June 28, 2021, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for certain projects relating on-call environmental consulting services reement ).

B. On May 9, 2022, the City increased the compensation for services by $150,000, for a total amount not to exceed $190,000.

C. The City again desires to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement and to increase the contract compensation for services.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 2.0 - Term of Agreement, is hereby amended to provide that the Agreement will remain in effect until June 30, 2024, unless otherwise terminated or extended as provided in the Agreement.

2. Section 4.0 - Compensation for Services. The City shall pay the Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the Scope of Work's fee and cost schedule (Exhibit B). The cost of services shall be increased by $150,000, for a total amount not to exceed $340,000. No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager, or her designee.

3. The Parties agree that this Amendment will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered physically or by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

4. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment No. 2 remain in full force and effect.

This Agreement is executed on ________________, 2023, at Malibu, California, and effective as of February 13, 2023.

CITY OF MALIBU: ____________________________________ BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk (seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:

Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Page 2 of 2 ends

_____________________
255-2
_____________________________________ ____________________________________ TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney By: TORIN R. SNYDER Title: Principal, Rincon Consultants, Inc.

City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org Rincon Consulting Services 1 of 3
Compensation for Services
(Exhibit B)
The City shall pay the Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the Scope of Work’s fee and cost schedule. No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager, or his designee.

On call consulting services shall be provided on a time and materials cost basis, and adhere to contractually agreed upon rates. Work will be conducted only upon authorization from the City of Malibu.

The Consultant shall submit to the City, by no later than the 10th day of each month, its bill for services itemizing the fees and costs incurred during the previous month. The City shall pay the Consultant all uncontested amounts set forth in the Consultant's bill within 30 days after it is received.

Rincon Fee Schedules
Professional, Technical and Support Personnel* Hourly Rate Principal II $247
Director II $247
Principal I $227
Director I $227
Senior Supervisor II $211
Supervisor I $201
Senior Professional II $180
Senior Professional I $165
Professional IV $149
Professional III $134
Professional II $118
Professional I $108
Associate III $98
Associate II $93
Associate I $84
Project Assistant $77
Senior GIS Specialist $144
GIS/CADD Specialist II $129
GIS/CADD Specialist I $115
Technical Editor $115
Production Specialist $91
Clerical $77
*Professional classifications include environmental scientists, urban planners, biologists, geologists, marine scientists, GHG verifiers, sustainability experts, cultural resources experts and other professionals. Expert witness services consisting of depositions or in-court testimony are charged at the hourly rate of $350 All rates shall include overhead costs including, but not limited to salaries, benefits, insurance, office expenses, mileage and courier service. If staff substitutions are necessary, or if staff is promoted, the original rates listed will still apply.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E02EB000-AA05-4BBB-BD08-EB2CC2421E1A Rincon Consulting Services
2 of 3 Recycled Paper
Equipment Day Rate
Brass Sample Sleeves, Bailers, Disposable Bailers $25
Water Level Indicator, DC Purge Pump $40
Hand Auger Sampler $55
Oil-Water Interface Probe $85
Four Gas Monitor or Photo-Ionization Detector $120
Soil Vapor Extraction Monitoring Equipment $140
Flame Ionization Detector $200
Trimble GPS (sub-meter accuracy) $190
UAS Drone $250
Pettersson Bat Ultrasound Detector/Recording Equipment $150 Spotting or Fiberoptic Scope $150
Amphibian/Vernal Pool Field Package (digital camera, GPS, thermometer, decon chlorine, waders, float tube, hand net, field microscope)
$150
Remote Field Package (digital camera, GPS, thermometer, binoculars, tablet and mifi, Delorme Satellite Beacon, 24-hour safety phone)
$125
Sound Level Metering Field Package (anemometer, tripod and digital camera) $100 Standard Field Package (digital camera, GPS, thermometer, binoculars, tablet, safety equipment, and botanic collecting equipment)
$95
Fisheries Equipment Package (waders, wetsuits, dip nets, seine nets, bubblers, buckets) $50 Water Quality Equipment (DO, pH, turbidity, refractometer, temperature) $55 Large Block Nets $100
Minnow Trap $85
Infrared Sensor Digital Camera or Computer Field Equipment $50 Scent Station $20
Laser Rangefinder/Altitude $10
Net, Hand/Large Seine $10/$50
Pit-fall Traps, Spotlights, Anemometer, GPS Units, Sterilized Sample Jar $8 Mammal Trap, Large/Small $1.50/$0.50
Refractometer (salinity) or Turbidity Meter $35
Multi Parameter Sonde (temperature, conductivity, turbidity, DO, pH) with GPS $150 Boat (20 ft. Boston Whaler or similar) $300
Boat (26 ft. Radon or similar) $550
Side Scan or Single Beam Sonar $700
Underwater and Marine Sampling Gear includes: U/W Photo/Video Camera, SCUBA Equipment (tanks, BCD, regulators, wetsuits, etc.)
$50/diver
Marine Field Package: (personal flotation devices (PFDs), 100 ft. reel tapes with stainless carabiners, Pelican floats, underwater slates, thermometer, refractometer, anemometer, various field guides)
$50
L&H Dive Insurance $50/diver
Hazard Premium (In or Underwater ONLY per/hour) $1.25/hour Level C Health and Safety $60/person
Rincon Classifications
Name Role Billing Rate Classification
Kiernan Brtalik, MESM, CPSWQ,
QSD/P
Project Manager and Primary
Contact
Senior Professional I
Lindsay Ellingson Assistant Project Manager Environmental Scientist III Torin Snyder, PG, CHG, CGP ToR,

QSD/P, CPSS
Principal-In-Charge Principal I
DocuSign Envelope ID: E02EB000-AA05-4BBB-BD08-EB2CC2421E1A Rincon Consulting Services
3 of 3 Recycled Paper
Ryan Thacher, PhD, PE QA Manager Director I
Caitlyn Teague, QSD/P, QISP Water Resources Project Manager Environmental Scientist IV Menso de Jong Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Environmental Scientist III
Jaime McClain Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Marine Biologist III
Peter Doran Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Environmental Scientist III
Michelle Carter Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Environmental Scientist II
James Grunden Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Marine Biologist II
Caleb Yakel Stormwater & Water Quality
Technical Staff
Environmental Scientist I
Jennifer Schwartz, PE, QSD Spill Response Lead Senior Environmental Engineer I Will Salisbury, QSP, GIT Spill Response Technical Staff Environmental Scientist III Ryan Stewart Spill Response Technical Staff Environmental Scientist III Nico Navarro Spill Response Technical Staff Environmental Scientist I Stephanie Stater Spill Response Technical Staff Environmental Scientist I John Donoghue, GISP Senior GIS Specialist Lead Senior GIS Specialist Marcus Klatt GIS and Data Management Lead Senior GIS Specialist Larry Walker Associates Fee Schedule and Classifications Name Title Classification/Role 2021
Billing Rate ($/hr)
Ashli Desai President Strategic Advisor $309
Chris Minton Vice President Strategic Advisor $283
Paul Hartman Associate Technical Lead $258
Will Lewis, CPESC,
CPSWQ
Senior Scientist Task Lead $232
Bryant Alvarado, EIT Project Engineer II-A Technical Staff $200 Adriel Leon Project Scientist I-A Technical Staff $170
All rates shall include overhead costs including, but not limited to salaries, benefits, insurance, office expenses, mileage and courier service. If staff substitutions are necessary, or if staff is promoted, the original rates listed will still apply.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E02EB000-AA05-4BBB-BD08-EB2CC2421E1A

Page 1 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: February 8, 2023 Meeting Date: February 27, 2023 Subject: Appeal No. 22-007 - Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44 (31113 Bailard Road; Owner: Ellis and Williams Ellis; Appellant:

Debra Decray)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 23-09 (Exhibit A), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal No. 22-007 (Exhibit B) and approving Coastal Development PermitWoolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 22-006 to allow the reconstruction of an existing driveway and construction of new retaining walls; including Variance (VAR) No. 21-013 for the replacement driveway, the two-car garage, and decking for fire department access on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, seven inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, one inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, for a property effected by the 2018 Woolsey Fire, located in the Rural Residential, Five-Acre (RR-5) zoning district at 31113 Bailard Road (Ellis and Williams Ellis).

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

WORK PLAN: This item is not included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. Processing this application is part of normal staff operations.

DISCUSSION: The matter is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CDPWF No. 22-006, VAR Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008, for an application to reconstruct an existing driveway and construction of new retaining walls (Exhibit B – Project Plans) to meet fire department access requirements on a Woolsey Fire affected parcel.

City Council Meeting
02-27-23
Item

4.A.
1

Page 2 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Below is a chronology of the subject property since first noticed for a Planning Commission hearing:
• On November 15, 2021, the subject item was first before the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain in order to address grading quantities;
• On April 4, 2022, VAR No. 22-008 was added to the project for additional nonexempt grading exceeding 1,000 cubic yards not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards; • On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject item to the June 20, 2022, regular Planning Commission meeting;
• On June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject application to a date uncertain;
• On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject item to the August 1, 2022, regular Planning Commission meeting; and
• On August 1, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item and approved the project in a 3-2 vote.

On August 11, 2022, the adjacent neighbor at 31121 Bailard Road, Debra Decray, filed a timely appeal application with the City. The appellant contends that the variances are excessive and the need for the variances can be avoided or minimized if the original Fire Department parking/hammerhead turnaround area continues to be utilized.

The subject item was originally submitted as Administrative Plan Review-Woolsey Fire (APRWF) No. 20-062 but modified to become a full CDP (CDPWF No. 22-006).

Separately, and prior to the application at issue, Planning Verification – Woolsey Fire (PVWF) No. 20-046 was approved to replace the previously existing single-family residence destroyed by the fire, and De Minimis Waiver (DMW) No. 20-032 was approved for an onsite wastewater treatment system to replace the damaged system. PVWF applications are only reviewed by the Planning Department prior to going through the Building Plan Check approval process. Once a Planning Department-approved PVWF application initiates the Building Plan Check process, the application is then reviewed by outside agencies such as the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). PVWF No. 20-046 has not completed the Building Plan Check process and no Building Permits have been issued. The approved plans for PVWF No. 20-046 clearly state that the driveway, turnaround area, and other portions of development on steep slopes will be proposed under a separate application. These approvals are not part of the current appeal—which only challenges the CDP related to the driveway, retaining walls, decking and garage.

Since the project was originally processed as an APR, some department review sheets still list the project as an APRWF, but they have been reviewed for consistency with the LCP as required for a CDP — the APR notation on some of these documents is only a relic of how the original application was submitted. The specialists for these City departments 2

Page 3 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
indicated that new review sheets were not needed after the application changed to CDPWF as the scope of work and conditions of approval did not change.

The previously existing 3,655 square foot single-family residence was destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire. Below is a listing of approvals that have been issued related to the reconstruction of the residence that was destroyed by the fire.

• On May 28, 2020, PVWF No. 20-046 was approved for an in-kind replacement of the residence plus a 10 percent addition for a 4,020 square foot, single-family residence;
• On July 22, 2021, De Minimis Waiver (DMW) No. 20-032 was approved for an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) and reported to the Planning Commission on August 2, 2021; and
• On June 6, 2022, a substantial conformance for PVWF No. 20-046 was approved for a floor plan change to reduce the bulk and mass of the previously approved garage area and preserve existing finished grade adjacent to the residence.

The subject application is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22- 008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

The subject application also consists of the portions of retaining walls and a deck around the residence that are located on manufactured slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 which accommodate the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s (LACFD) required walkway around the residence. The portion of the garage located on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 is due to site constraints in that the only other potential location for the garage would be below the residence which would increase the height of the residence beyond the maximum allowed and would not be expected to reduce amount of proposed grading or height of the proposed retaining walls.

The parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The applicant applied to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter. In order to meet LACFD’s access standards for driveway slope and turnaround area, the proposed project requires an amount of non-exempt grading that exceeds the 1,000 cubic yard maximum allowed by code. The applicant, therefore, applied for the variances to accommodate the LACFD turnaround and required driveway improvements.
3

Page 4 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Existing Driveway:

Figure 1: Existing Driveway and Turnaround
Source: Project Plans Sheet G1
The existing driveway is approximately 12-15 feet wide and is steeper than what is allowed by the LACFD. In addition, the turns along the curving driveway are too narrow for the LACFD’s trucks turning radius. Neither the MMC nor the LCP contains driveway width or steepness requirements. The City has relied on the LACFD requirements to ensure safe access and fire protection. The LACFD standards for driveway steepness necessitated 4

Page 5 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
more grading than the City allows, which led to the need for a variance for the required grading. VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards was subsequently applied to the project.

Proposed Driveway:

Figure 2: Proposed Driveway and Turnaround
Source: Project Plans Sheet G1
5

Page 6 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.

In order to meet LACFD’s standards for driveway width and truck turning radiuses, the applicant has proposed to construct a new driveway and turnaround area, along with a more gradual incline to accommodate the trucks. The variances for grading and retaining walls are required for this plan, particularly because the grade of the fire department hammerhead turn-around had to be lowered through excavation. By lowering the grade of the turn-around, the angle of the driveway was able to be reduced so that it complies with LACFD requirements. The proposed retaining walls will allow for the required Fire Department turnaround size and therefore enable the required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district.

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellant argues that the project includes “excessive” variances which could be avoided or minimized if the original Fire Department parking and hammerhead turnaround area was used instead. In addition, the appellant contends that if the new single-family residence and garage were on the original house pad, plus 10 percent, then much of the grading on slopes 2.5 to 1 or greater and high retaining walls above six and a half feet would not be needed or could be minimized. The full text of the appeal document can be found in Exhibit B. The Planning Commission agenda report, in which staff recommended approval of the project, is included as Exhibit D. The Planning Commission agenda report includes a complete overview of the surrounding area, project conformance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and MMC, and a discussion of all findings required to approve the application. The adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44, approving the project, is included as Exhibit E.

Staff Summary
Fundamentally, the appeal asks the Council to permit the existing Fire Department access to remain. Based on comment from LACFD, this is not an option because the curves in the existing driveway are too narrow for the LACFD’s truck turning radius, the existing slope of the driveway is too steep for LACFD trucks, and the existing turnaround area does not meet LACFD’s sizing standards. The proposed amount of grading and resulting retaining walls are required in order to construct a driveway to meet LACFD’s standards for access.

Upon approval of this application, the applicant can then obtain LACFD approval and complete the plan check process for the previously approved replacement structure.

The appellant asserts that the single-family residence, approved under PVWF No. 20-046, should be reconstructed on the original house pad and then the footprint expanded to accommodate the additional 10 percent by utilizing the available side, rear, and front yard 6

Page 7 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
setbacks. The single-family residence was approved under a different application is not part of the application at issue.

The appellant also contends that the City’s codes are not being met, specifically the Malibu General Plan, Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP), and Hillside Ordinance standards within the Malibu Municipal Code which requires development that is consistent with the preservation and protection of the natural topography and viewshed. Implementation Measure 47 of Goal #1 within Chapter 5: Safety and Health Element of the General Plan states, “To protect slope stability, restrict grading or development related vegetation clearance where the slope exceeds 2:1, except as required for fire safety, driveways and utilities and where there is no reasonable alternative.” The proposed changes to the existing driveway are specifically for fire safety purposes, per the requirements of LACFD. Policy #4.50 of Chapter 4: Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff Development within the Malibu LUP states, “New development shall provide for emergency vehicle access and fire-flow water supply in accordance with applicable fire safety regulations.” The proposed driveway is designed specifically to enable emergency vehicle access to the property in accordance with LACFD regulations. The Hillside Ordinance is not applicable to the proposed project as all driveways and turnaround areas are exempt from Hillside standards. Lastly, the appellant states that there are also requirements that the development alternative that is the least damaging to the environment should be used. Section A of the August 1, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Report (Exhibit D), analyses two potential alternative projects: (1) relocating the garage below the residence and (2) installing a smaller driveway with smaller retaining walls with less encroachment on steep slopes. Relocating the garage below the residence would increase the height of the residence beyond the maximum amount allowed and would not be expected to reduce grading or the height of the retaining walls and having a smaller driveway with smaller retaining walls would not be in compliance with LACFD’s access requirements. The report states there is no evidence a smaller or relocated project would be feasible or a substantially environmentally superior alternative.

Therefore, the proposed project, as designed, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

Additionally, the appellant requests several conditions be added to the resolution. First, the appellant requests a condition be added which prohibits a pool in front of the new residence as well as all structures and infrastructure including patios, retaining walls, etc. forward of the residence since nothing was on that hillside prior to the home burning down.

Adding such a condition would go beyond the project scope that is being appealed and therefore are not part of the application at issue. Second, require the upgraded septic system be placed under what is the current hammerhead turnaround location where the existing system is/was located instead of locating it on the steep hillside directly above the downslope residence. The new septic system was approved under DMW No. 20-032 and therefore is not part of the application at issue. Third, remove the non-permitted grading in front of the original house pad and restore it to its original condition. This requirement would go beyond the scope of the application at issue. Fourth, include a condition that there be 7

Page 8 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
no driveway lighting. All proposed lighting must confirm to the City’s Dark Skies Ordinances and a requirement of no driveway lighting goes beyond the requirements for Dark Skies.

Lastly, include a standard road damage repair condition approved by the Planning Commission. At its August 1, 2022 Commission meeting, the Commissioners voted to include a condition which requires the property owner to submit a pre-construction assessment of Bailard Road to the subject parcel and the property owner shall be financially responsible for any repairs of any damage to the road resulting from the construction activity while also submitting a post-construction assessment to demonstrate compliance. This condition was added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44 and is being maintained in City Council Resolution No. 23-09.

The Planning Commission’s approval of the project per Resolution No. 22-44 was based on the evidence supporting the findings required for the requested variances (VAR Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008). The Planning Commission’s determination was based on the evidence in the record, including the property owner being required to accommodate LACFD trucks entering and exiting the property. To date, no evidence has been submitted to contradict the applicant’s contention that the existing driveway does not comply with LACFD requirements.

The staff report for the August 1, 2022, public hearing recommended approval of the project and provided evidence that supported the findings required by LIP Chapter 13 and LIP section 13.26.5 for construction on steep slopes, construction of retaining walls in excess of six feet in height, and for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards.

The variance findings for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 can be made because the parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with the majority of the flag portion of the lot containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. In order to bring the driveway into conformance with current fire safety access requirements, the Fire Department turnaround, access to the garage, and decking are proposed on slopes equal to or steeper than 2.5 to 1. Due to the site’s topography, size, and location, the development will not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to

1. The proposed variance will also allow for construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property and access into the garage.

The variance findings for construction of retaining walls in excess of six feet in height can be made because they are needed to construct the proposed driveway and Fire Department turnaround due to of the topography which consists of steep slopes. The retaining walls need to be in excess of six feet in height (up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches) and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to allow construction of the flatter pad required by the Fire Department for access. The grading required is needed for the access as well. There is no other area on the property 8

Page 9 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires retaining walls of the proposed heights to comply with LACFD maximum slope for a driveway. The variance would grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property given the characteristics of the subject property.

The variance for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, can be made due to the parcel’s topography. Due to the subject parcel’s topography and the LACFD requirements for access, the proposed five-foot walkway around the residence, and the driveway and turnaround result in non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. The proposed development on the subject property would not be feasible without a variance for non-exempt grading to exceed the maximum allowed for a residential lot.

In addition, the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated August 1, 2022, presents two alternatives that were considered but were ultimately deemed infeasible for specific reasons. The first alternative proposed relocating the garage below the residence because the driveway cannot be moved due to the existing condition of the flag lot. However, relocating the garage below the residence would increase the height of the residence in excess of the maximum allowed and would not be expected to reduce the grading or height of retaining walls. The second alternative proposed the possibility of a smaller driveway, smaller retaining walls, or encroachment on steep slopes which would accommodate a five-foot wide access around the residence, but the driveway access to the approved residence would not be in compliance with LACFD requirements. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a smaller or relocated project would be feasible or a substantially environmentally superior alternative.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The Planning Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence received in response to the project is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Staff received one email from a nearby resident requesting more information about the project, the appeal process, the requested variances, and the availability of the staff report.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On February 2, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and a public notice was 9

Page 10 of 10 ends

Agenda Item # 4.A.
mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500-feet of the subject property (Exhibit G).

SUMMARY: Based on the record as a whole, including but not limited to all written and oral testimony offered in connection with this matter, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 23-09, denying the appeal and approving CDPWF No. 22- 006, VAR Nos. 21-013, 21-014 and 22-008.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 23-09
B. Appeal No. 22-007
C. Project Plans – Approved by Planning Commission on August 1, 2022 D. August 1, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Report Item 4.A.

E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44
F. Public Correspondence
G. Public Hearing Notice
10 ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU,

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL NO. 22-007 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-WOOLSEY FIRE NO. 22-006 TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS;
INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 21-013 FOR THE REPLACEMENT

DRIVEWAY, THE TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND DECKING FOR FIRE
DEPARTMENT ACCESS ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 2.5 TO 1, VARIANCE NO. 21-014 FOR HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT BUT NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET, 7 INCHES AND A COMBINED HEIGHT UP TO 32 FEET, 1 INCH, AND VARIANCE NO. 22-008 FOR NONEXEMPT GRADING OVER 1,000 CUBIC YARDS, NOT TO EXCEED 2,130 CUBIC YARDS, FOR A PROPERTY EFFECTED BY THE 2018 WOOLSEY

FIRE, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, FIVE-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 31113 BAILARD ROAD (ELLIS AND WILLIAMS ELLIS) The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On December 10, 2020, an application for Administrative Plan Review Woolsey Fire (APRWF) No. 20-062, was submitted to the Planning Department by the applicant, Vue Ventures, on behalf of the property owners, David W. Ellis and Kate Williams Ellis. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On April 29, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.

C. On July 20, 2021, Variance (VAR) Nos. 21-013 and 21-014 were added to the project for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, and for height of retaining walls over six feet in height.

D. On August 30, 2021, the APRWF application was deemed complete for processing.

E. On October 21, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain to address grading quantities and Planning Commissioner inquiries.

G. On April 4, 2022, VAR No. 22-008 was added to the project for additional nonexempt grading exceeding 1,000 cubic yards not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

H. On May 12, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. 11 Resolution No 23-09

Page 2 of 21 ends

______________________
I. On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the June 20, 2022, Planning commission meeting.

J. On June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.

K. On June 21, 2022, the subject application was changed from APRWF No. 20-062 to Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 22-006.

L. On June 23, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the August 1, 2022, Regular Planning Commission meeting.

N. On August 1, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record and approved the application and adopted approval Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44.

O. On August 11, 2022, an appeal was filed by Debra DeCray.

P. On February 2, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

Q. On February 27, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written materials, public testimony, and other information in the record, including the City Council Agenda report, and based thereon makes the following determination.

SECTION 2. Appeal of Action.

The appeal filed by the appellant contends the following:

1. The variances requested by the applicant are excessive and can be avoided or minimized if the original Fire Department parking and hammerhead turnaround area continues to be utilized;

2. The new residence should be reconstructed on the original house pad and then the footprint expanded to accommodate the additional 10 percent by utilizing the available side, rear, and front yard setback;

3. Of the alternative project development designs considered, rebuilding on the existing building footprint was not considered; The project is not in conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, the Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP), the Hillside Ordinance, which requires development that is consistent with the preservation and protection of the natural topography and viewshed;

4. The project alternative that is the least damaging should be used and the required findings for the proposed project can’t be made.
12 Resolution No 23-09

Page 3 of 21 ends

______________________

5. Whatever building plan is ultimately approved, require the following additional conditions of approval be added:
a. Staff made the applicant remove the pool and the related retaining walls from their plans. Therefore, condition the project to prohibit a pool in front of the new residence. This also will prevent possible damage from the pool malfunctioning which could flood or damage the house below. Condition the project to prohibit all structures and infrastructure including patios, retaining walls, etc. forward of the residence since nothing was on the hillside forward of the burnt out home before.
b. For safety reasons require the upgraded septic system be placed under what is the current hammerhead turnaround location where the existing system is/was located instead of locating it on the steep hillside directly above the downslope residence. This would prevent damaging the home directly below if there was a malfunction, including breakage, overflow or other type discharge and would eliminate the need for a retaining wall at the proposed new septic location. c. Remove the non-permitted grading in front of the original house pad and restore it to its original natural condition. This is required since the pool and related retaining walls were eliminated by staff.
d. Include a condition that there be no driveway lighting. e. Include the standard road damage repair condition approved by the Planning Commission.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denying the Appeal.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the content of the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denies the appeals, and approves the project.

In summary, the Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with the required CDP and Variance findings.

The proposed driveway, retaining walls, decking, and grading are necessary in order to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s requirements for driveway width, slope, turnaround area, and walkway width to allow access to the property in case of emergency, and compliant access cannot be provided without the requested variances. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative and meets the City’s residential development policies of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) inclusive of the variance requests.

The single-family residence was approved under a different application is not part of the application at issue.

Implementation Measure 47 of Goal #1 within Chapter 5 (Safety and Health Element) of the General Plan states, “To protect slope stability, restrict grading or development related vegetation clearance where the slope exceeds 2:1, except as required for fire safety, driveways and utilities and where there is no reasonable alternative.” The proposed changes to the existing driveway, turnaround area, and decking are specifically for fire safety purposes, per the requirements of LACFD. Policy 4.50 of Chapter 4 (Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff Development) within the Malibu 13 Resolution No 23-09

Page 4 of 21 ends

______________________
LUP states, “New development shall provide for emergency vehicle access and fire-flow water supply in accordance with applicable fire safety regulations.” The proposed driveway and associated improvements is designed specifically to enable emergency vehicle access to the property in accordance with LACFD regulations. The Hillside Ordinance is not applicable to the proposed project as all driveways and turnaround areas are exempt from Hillside standards. Lastly, the appellant states that there are also requirements that the development alternative that is the least damaging to the environment should be used.

Planning Commission Agenda Report dated August 1, 2022 analyses two potential alternative projects: (1) relocating the garage below the residence and (2) installing a smaller driveway with smaller retaining walls with less encroachment on steep slopes. Relocating the garage below the residence would increase the height of the residence beyond the maximum amount allowed and would not be expected to reduce grading or the height of the retaining walls and having a smaller driveway with smaller retaining walls would not be in compliance with LACFD’s access requirements. The report states there is no evidence a smaller or relocated project would be feasible or a substantially environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the proposed project, as designed, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The requested conditions to prohibit the pool and related structures in front of the house, the request to move the septic system to underneath the existing turnaround area, and the request to remove grading and restore the front slope go beyond the scope of the application at issue. The request to require no driveway lighting goes beyond the requirements for the City’s Dark Skies Ordinance, which the applicant is already required to adhere to. The road damage repair condition approved by the Planning Commission is maintained in this Resolution.

Based on the evidence in the record, the Council finds that the evidence supports the findings required to approve the project. For these reasons, as described further above and below, the council denies the appeal and approves the project as detailed below.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 5. Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Findings
Based on the evidence in the record (including the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council) the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denying the appeal and approving the project and finds that substantial evidence in the record supports the required findings for approval of the project.
14 Resolution No 23-09

Page 5 of 21 ends

______________________
The Council finds the project complies with the requirements of the City’s LCP. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable codes, standards, goals, and policies inclusive of the variance requests. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-5 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The project is for a driveway reconfiguration, addition of retaining walls and additional non-exempt grading. The proposed project is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. (WD29). As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

2. The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The proposed site improvements are located on the same site as a previously destroyed single-family residence. The proposed project will provide improved fire access to the single-family residence. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer, as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Therefore, Environmental Review Board review was not required, and this finding does not apply.

B. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 2.5 to 1 (LIP Section 13.26)

1. The parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The surrounding neighborhood was constructed in the 1960s to 1970s, when the City was still unincorporated Los Angeles County. Before cityhood, these parcels were developed without the need for variances for construction on steep slopes as evident with surrounding neighbors, which were built into the hillside similarly to the proposed development. The applicant proposed to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20- 046 within the previously existing building pad which consists mostly of 3 to 1 slopes or flatter.

However, a portion of the proposed two-car garage and deck under that application are located on variance slopes and are requesting after-the-fact approval through the subject application. This after-the-fact approval was the result of the applicant trying to rebuild the destroyed residence while trying to bring the development closer into conformance with today’s fire safety access requirements. Additionally, the proposed driveway and the required Fire Department turnaround, access to the garage and decking are proposed on slopes equal to or steeper than 2.5 to 1. Therefore, 15 Resolution No 23-09

Page 6 of 21 ends

______________________
residential development on the subject property may not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1.

3. and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

4. As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude a single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district.

Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner.

5. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a single-family residence and associated development are allowed in the RR-5 zoning district. As previously stated in Section A, with the inclusion of the variance, the project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations.

The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.

6. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

7. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

8. The variance request is for development on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 to provide the required Fire Department turnaround and driveway to the property in compliance with LACFD as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

9. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site, however, construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 cannot be avoided. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.
16 Resolution No 23-09

Page 7 of 21 ends

______________________

10. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the required driveway and Fire Department turnaround will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

11. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

C. Variance for Construction of Retaining Walls over Six Feet in Height (MMC Chapter

17.72)

1. As previously mentioned in Section A the parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The applicant proposed to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter. However, the proposed driveway and required Fire Department turnaround are proposed on steep slopes which require retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department access and associated required grading. Therefore, residential development on the subject property would not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction retaining walls in excess of six feet in height.

2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will substantially improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed construction of the retaining walls is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to comply with LACFD maximum slope for a driveway. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding 17 Resolution No 23-09

Page 8 of 21 ends

______________________
properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage, will increase the protection of the subject property and surrounding residences from fire hazards. The steepness of the proposed driveway and Fire Department turnaround will meet the maximum permitted by the LACFD. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

7. The variance request is for construction of retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to allow LACFD-required access to a replacement residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. This variance will help provide the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the singlefamily residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flagpole that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The retaining walls over six feet in height, up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls), were specifically designed to provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

9. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the retaining walls over six feet in height will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

D. Variance for Non-Exempt Grading over 1,000 Cubic Yards, Not to Exceed 2,130 Cubic Yards (MMC Chapter 17.72)
18 Resolution No 23-09

Page 9 of 21 ends

______________________

1. As previously mentioned in Section A, the parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The owner has been granted a Planning Department approval to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No. 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter.

However, given the site’s topography and LACFD requirements for access, the proposed five-foot walkway around the residence, driveway and turnaround result in non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Therefore, residential development on the subject property would not be feasible without a variance for non-exempt grading to exceed the maximum allowed for a residential lot.

2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed grading is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

7. The variance request is for additional non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards to allow LACFD-required access to a replacement residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. This variance will help provide the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential 19 Resolution No 23-09

Page 10 of 21 ends

______________________
development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flagpole that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The additional grading will provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

9. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Additional non-exempt grading will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

SECTION 6. City Council Approval.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDPWF No. 22-006, and VAR Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008. subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Fire Department turnaround and driveway improvements; b. Retaining walls; and
c. Two-car garage and decking;
d. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1; ii. VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch; and iii. VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.
20 Resolution No 23-09

Page 11 of 21 ends

______________________

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on the architectural and grading plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped June 6, 2022. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, the permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth below. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 30 days of this decision or prior to issuance of building permits.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 4 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. This CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

7. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

11. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition. 21 Resolution No 23-09

Page 12 of 21 ends

______________________
Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

13. If human bone is discovered, the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. These require notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Demolition/Solid Waste

14. Prior to demolition activities, the applicant shall receive Planning Department approval for compliance with conditions of approval.

15. The applicant/property owner shall contract with a City approved hauler to facilitate the recycling of all recoverable/recyclable material. Recoverable material shall include but shall not be limited to: asphalt, dirt and earthen material, lumber, concrete, glass, metals, and drywall.

16. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with CalGreen) of all construction waste from the landfill.

17. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.

Construction/Framing

18. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the applicant/property owner shall provide a pre-construction assessment of the existing condition of Bailard Road to the subject parcel.

A copy of this assessment shall be kept on file with the City. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for repairs of any damage to the road that may result during the construction phase of the proposed project. Any obvious damage to the road that becomes apparent during the construction phase (including, but not limited to, potholes, cracks and ripples) shall be immediately repaired by the applicants/property owner. Prior to a Planning Department final inspection, the applicant/property owner shall submit a post-construction assessment of the road to demonstrate compliance with this condition. A photo survey shall be utilized to complete this assessment. Alternatively, the property owner/applicant may 22 Resolution No 23-09

Page 13 of 21 ends

______________________
reach an agreement with the entity that maintains the road for an in-lieu payment to repair this segment of the private road.

19. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to final plan check approval.

20. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

21. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

22. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity, and pollutant load of stormwater runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October)
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

23. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the recommended finished floor and the street elevation and the highest roof member elevations for the landward and seaward halves of the residence. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.

Biology/Landscaping

24. The use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance which has the potential to significantly degrade biological resources shall be prohibited throughout the City of Malibu. The eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration shall consider first the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls. Herbicides may be selected only after all other non-chemical methods have been exhausted. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and use for a limited time. 23 Resolution No 23-09

Page 14 of 21 ends

______________________

25. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.

26. Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the southern limits of grading.

Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

27. Earthmoving shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 through October

31. If it becomes necessary to conduct earthmoving activities from November 1 through March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Biologist for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or earthmoving activities.

28. At no time shall any equipment or materials be stored or staged on the beach.

29. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

30. The use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

Public Works

31. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, post-construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

32. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu's standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

33. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to issuance of permits.

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

34. The total grading yardage verification certificate shall be copied onto the coversheet of the Grading Plan. No alternative formats or substitutes will be accepted.

35. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
24 Resolution No 23-09

Page 15 of 21 ends

______________________
Erosion Control Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
Sandbag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Fencing
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

36. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs):
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofitrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the 25 Resolution No 23-09

Page 16 of 21 ends

______________________
WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

37. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

38. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the submittal of the required construction general permit document to the State Water Quality Control Board, the property owner / applicant shall submit the Public Works Department an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for review. The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs prepared and certified by a qualified SWPPP developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California civil engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements.
a. Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area
b. Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees
c. Sediment/erosion control
d. Controls to prevent tracking on- and off-site
e. Non-stormwater control
f. Material management (delivery and storage)
g. Spill prevention and control
h. Waste management
26 Resolution No 23-09

Page 17 of 21 ends

______________________
i. Identification of site risk level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit
j. Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that quality personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grand and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.”

39. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section 17.3.2.B.2.

40. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section

17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

41. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

42. The Building Official may approve grading during the rainy season to remediate hazardous geologic conditions that endanger public health and safety.

43. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section

8.3. 44. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion of final grading. 27 Resolution No 23-09

Page 18 of 21 ends

______________________
Geology

45. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

46. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Lighting

47. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards.
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens;
d. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
e. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

48. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.

49. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. High intensity lighting of the shore is prohibited.

50. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.

51. Three violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site.

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System

52. OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan and Grading Plans must show: (1) the existing OWTS, including the septic tank and seepage pits clearly labeled as “to be abandoned”; and (2) the proposed OWTS, including the treatment tank and present/future seepage pits.
28 Resolution No 23-09

Page 19 of 21 ends

______________________

53. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

54. Upgrade to the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A new advanced OWTS must be installed. In accordance with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP), the appropriate permit must be obtained from the Planning Division. The new OWTS must be approved and installed with final inspection by the Building Safety Department prior to occupancy of the structure.

55. Compliance Agreement for Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Repair, Modification, Upgrade or Replacement: A compliance agreement running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said compliance agreement shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the OWTS serving subject property is not functioning properly and/or is in need of repair or replacement in order to bring it into compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

56. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: a fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health Building Plan Check Review.

Fencing and Walls

57. The applicant shall include an elevation of the proposed electronic driveway gate on the architectural plans that are submitted for building plan check. The gate and all fencing along the front property line shall comply with the regulations set forth in LIP Section 3.5 and LIP Section 6.5.

58. Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within ESHA, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration. Fencing or walls that do not permit the free passage of wildlife shall be prohibited in any wildlife corridor.

59. Development adjacent to, but not within ESHA, may include fencing, if necessary for security, that is limited to the area around the clustered development area.

Prior to Occupancy

60. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final 29 Resolution No 23-09

Page 20 of 21 ends

______________________
Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

61. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

62. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

63. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final planning approval.

Fixed Conditions

64. This Coastal Development Permit Woolsey Fire shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

65. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.
30 Resolution No 23-09

Page 21 of 21 ends

______________________
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27h day of February 2023.

BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:

KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
31 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road· Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

NON-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPEAL SUBMITTAL
Actions Subject to Appeal: Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.04.220, any person aggrieved by a decision or any portion of a decision made by the Planning Director under the provisions of this title in connection with a site plan review, variance, stringline modification, conditional use permit, cultural resources review, highway dedication or improvement, or temporary use permit may appeal such action to the Planning Commission. Any person aggrieved in a similar manner by such decision made by the Planning Commission may appeal such action to the City Council.

Planning Director or Planning Commission Date of Action: _A'-----'-_ll& __a,_S7 __ /=---�-+1_/)_D_d __ ;} ___ _ I Case No.: CD/0/<JF ,;)_�-()(!;) 0
SiteAddress/Location: 3!!/3 /J4fl4,e,L) Ko., MAlrba,CA- fo�45 . }
Note: Appeals shall be addressed to the appellant body on a form prescribed by the City. The appeal shall state the basis of the appeal and identify the decision or portion of the decision being appealed and stated the grounds for the appeal. Only matters raised in the appeal shall be subject to review. Any matters not raised in the appeal shall not be subject to consideration by the appellate body. The purpose of this limitation is to provide adequate notice to all parties with respect to the issues on appeal and eliminate the necessity of rehearing matters not subject to challenge. Although the issues on appeal will be- limited by the appeal, the appellate body will accept new evidence (de novo appeal) and will not be bound by the previous record. [MMC Section 17.04.220(8)]
An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days following the date of action for which appeal is made.

Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee as specified by the City Council. An appellant shall have an additional 10 days following the date of filing the appeal to submit to the City Clerk in writing, the specific grounds for the appeal. If the appellant does not submit grounds for the appeal within the time allowed by this section, the City Clerk shall return the filing fee and the appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. [MMC Section 17.04.220(C)]
To Submit an Appeal:

The appeal must be timely received by the City Clerk either in person or by mail addressed to City of Malibu, Attn: City Clerk, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265. For more information, contact Patricia Salazar, Senior Administrative Analyst, at (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

RECEIVED
AUG 11 2022
PLANNING DEPT.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Exhibit B
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 Exhibit C
39 40
41 42
43 44
N
AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC

PROJECT INFORMATION, EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN
150-16
FEBRUARY 2020
TAC
TJM
G1 OF 4
“
”“”
“
”
–
’
’
“
”“”
”””
“”
’
’
N
45 AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
150-16
FEBRUARY 2020
TAC
TJM
G2 OF 4
N
46 AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC

CROSS SECTIONS
150-16
FEBRUARY 2020
TAC
TJM
G3 OF 4
47 SECTION B-B

NOT TO SCALE
BB
AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC
N

EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND LOCAL SWPPP
150-16
FEBRUARY 2020
xx
TAC
TJM
G4 OF 4
xxxx
xxxxxxx
48 49
50

Page 1 of 2 ends

Supplemental
Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Richard Mollica, Assistant Planning Director Date prepared: July 25, 2022 Meeting date: August 1, 2022 Subject: Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-006, and Variance Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008 – An application for a replacement driveway, and construction of new retaining walls, two-car garage, decking, and non-exempt grading over 1, 000 cubic yards (Continued from July 18, 2022)
Location: 31113 Bailard Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4470-011-038
Owners: David W. Ellis and Kate Williams Ellis
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-006 to allow the reconstruction of an existing driveway and construction of new retaining walls; including Variance No. 21-013 for the replacement driveway and to retroactively apply to a two-car garage and decking previously approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 20-046 on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, Variance No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and Variance No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, for a home destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire, located in the Rural Residential, Five-Acre zoning district at 31113 Bailard Road (Ellis and Williams Ellis).

DISCUSSION: On July 22, 2022, the agenda report for the subject item was published.

After its distribution, staff became aware that the wrong attachments were inadvertently included with the the report. The correct attachments for the subject item are attached hereto.

Planning Commission
Meeting
08-01-22
Item

4.A.

Exhibit D
51

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44
B. Correspondence for the July 18, 2022 Regular Planning Commission meeting C. July 18, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Report
52 ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 22-44

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-WOOLSEY FIRE NO. 22- 006 TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS; INCLUDING
VARIANCE NO. 21-013 FOR THE REPLACEMENT DRIVEWAY ANDTO

RETROACTIVELY APPLY TO A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND DECKING
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING VERIFICATIONWOOLSEY FIRE NO. 20-046 ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 2.5 TO 1, VARIANCE NO. 21-014 FOR HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT BUT NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET, 7 INCHES AND A COMBINED HEIGHT UP TO 32 FEET, 1 INCH, AND VARIANCE NO. 22-008 FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING OVER 1,000 CUBIC YARDS, NOT TO
EXCEED 2,130 CUBIC YARDS, FOR A HOME DESTROYED IN THE 2018

WOOLSEY FIRE, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, FIVE-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 31113 BAILARD ROAD (ELLIS AND WILLIAMS ELLIS)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On April 29, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.

C. On July 20, 2021, Variance (VAR) Nos. 21-013 and 21-014 were added to the project for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, and for height of retaining walls over six feet in height.

D. On August 30, 2021, the APRWF application was deemed complete for processing.

F. On November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain to address grading quantities and inquiries from a Planning Commissioner.

G. On April 4, 2022, VAR No. 22-008 was added to the project for additional nonexempt grading exceeding 1,000 cubic yards not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

DRAFT 53
Resolution No 22-44

Page 2 of 17 ends

______________________
H. On May 12, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject application to a date certain. A new Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was not required.

J. On June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject application to a date uncertain.

K. On June 21, 2022, the subject application was changed from APRWF No. 20-062 to Coastal Development Permit Woolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 22-006.

M. On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the August 1, 2022 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on July 18, 2022, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission hereby adopts the findings in the agenda report and approves CDPWF No 22-006 to allow the reconstruction of an existing driveway, and construction of new retaining walls; including VAR No. 21-013 for the replacement driveway and to retroactively applied to a two-car garage and decking previously approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire (PVWF) No. 20-046 on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, for a home destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire, located in the Rural Residential, Five-Acre (RR-5) zoning district at 31113 Bailard Road.

DRAFT 54
Resolution No 22-44

Page 3 of 17 ends

______________________
The project is consistent with the zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and OWTS requirements of the LCP. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-5 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The project is for a driveway reconfiguration, addition of retaining walls and additional non-exempt grading. The proposed project is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and WD29. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

2. The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

B. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 2.5 to 1 (LIP Section 13.26)

Page 4 of 17 ends

______________________
residential development on the subject property may not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1.

Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner.

4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a single-family residence and associated development are allowed in the RR-5 zoning district. As previously stated in Section A, with the inclusion of the variance, the project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations.

The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

7. The variance request is for development on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 to provide the required Fire Department turnaround and driveway to the property in compliance with LACFD as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site, however, construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 cannot be avoided. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for DRAFT 56
Resolution No 22-44

Page 5 of 17 ends

______________________
structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

9. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the required driveway and Fire Department turnaround will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

C. Variance for Construction of Retaining Walls over Six Feet in Height (MMC Chapter

17.72)

Page 6 of 17 ends

______________________
development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

DRAFT 58
Resolution No 22-44

Page 7 of 17 ends

______________________
D. Variance for Non-Exempt Grading over 1,000 Cubic Yards, Not to Exceed 2,130 Cubic Yards (MMC Chapter 17.72)

2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed grading is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

7. The variance request is for additional non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards DRAFT 59
Resolution No 22-44

Page 8 of 17 ends

______________________
to allow LACFD-required access to a replacement residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. This variance will help provide the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flagpole that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The additional grading will provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDPWF 22-006, and VAR Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Fire Department turnaround and driveway improvements; b. Retaining walls; and
c. After-the-fact approval of a two-car garage and decking; d. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1; ii. VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but to DRAFT 60
Resolution No 22-44

Page 9 of 17 ends

______________________
exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch; and iii. VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped June 6, 2022. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owners sign, notarize and return the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 30 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of building permits.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. This resolution, signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the Planning Commission agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet of the development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check.

7. This CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.

8. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

9. All structures shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and LACFD, as applicable.

Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

10. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

11. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including DRAFT 61
Resolution No 22-44

Page 10 of 17 ends

______________________
those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

12. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

14. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Demolition/Solid Waste

15. The applicant/property owners shall contract with a City approved hauler to facilitate the recycling of all recoverable/recyclable material. Recoverable material shall include but shall not be limited to: asphalt, dirt and earthen material, lumber, concrete, glass, metals, and drywall.

16. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owners or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with CalGreen) of all construction waste from the landfill.

17. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.

Construction / Framing

18. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.

19. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.

DRAFT 62
Resolution No 22-44

Page 11 of 17 ends

______________________

22. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

23. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.

Color and Materials

24. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Retaining walls shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. The color of driveways and retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on all grading, improvement and/or building plans.

Biology/Landscaping

25. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife. Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, DRAFT 63
Resolution No 22-44

Page 12 of 17 ends

______________________
and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

26. No new landscaping is proposed with this project; therefore, none is approved. Should the applicant intend to plant any new vegetation with a potential to exceed six feet in height or an area of 2,500 square feet or more, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any planting.

27. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.

28. Use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

Public Works

29. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

30. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

31. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic DRAFT 64
Resolution No 22-44

Page 13 of 17 ends

______________________
system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

32. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality.

These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading). d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

33. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:

DRAFT 65
Resolution No 22-44

Page 14 of 17 ends

______________________
Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management

34. All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

35. The consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

Geology

36. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers prior to the issuance of permits.

37. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be in substantial conformance with the approved APRWF relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a APRWF amendment or a new APRWF.

Environmental Health

38. OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan and Grading Plans must show: (1) the existing OWTS, including the septic tank and seepage pits clearly labeled as “to be abandoned”; and (2) the proposed OWTS, including the treatment tank and present/future seepage pits.

39. OWTS Plot Plan: A plot plan drawn to scale shall be submitted showing all existing improvements, proposed improvements, and all components of the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). At least one copy of the plot plan showing essential features of the OWTS must fit on an 11” x 17” sheet leaving a 5” left margin clear to provide space for a City-applied DRAFT 66
Resolution No 22-44

Page 15 of 17 ends

______________________
legend on approvals. The OWTS plan must show the existing OWTS to be abandoned and the proposed new OWTS.

40. Upgrade to the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A new advanced OWTS must be installed. In accordance with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and City Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP), the appropriate permit must be obtained from the Planning Division. The new OWTS must be approved and installed with final inspection by the Building Safety Department prior to occupancy of the structure.

41. Compliance Agreement for Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Repair, Modification, Upgrade or Replacement: A compliance agreement running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said compliance agreement shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the OWTS serving subject property is not functioning properly and/or is in need of repair or replacement in order to bring it into compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

42. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: a fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health Building plan Check Review.

Prior to Occupancy

43. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

44. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

45. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department with a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan Final Summary Report. The Final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were landfilled or recycled, broken down by material types. The Environmental Sustainability Department shall approve the Final Summary Report.

Fixed Conditions

46. This Coastal Development Permit Woolsey Fire runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

47. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and DRAFT 67
Resolution No 22-44

Page 16 of 17 ends

______________________
termination of all rights there under.

Deed Restrictions

48. The property owners are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owners shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning Department approval.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 2022. __________________________________________
KRAIG HILL, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing DRAFT 68
Resolution No 22-44

Page 17 of 17 ends

______________________
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 22-44 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 1st day of August 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT 69
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 7-18-22 agenda item 5A 31113 Bailard Rd.

Attachments: PC 31113 Bailard-comments 7-18-22.docx
Patricia Salazar | Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 245
From: healypatt .com>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 10:06 AM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 7‐18‐22 agenda item 5A 31113 Bailard Rd.

Patricia, resending.
-----Original Message-----
From: .com
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Jul 16, 2022 9:26 am
Subject: 7-18-22 agenda item 5A 31113 Bailard Rd.

Honorable Commissioners, I am sending the attached comments on behalf of Debra DeCray who doesn't own a computer. If you have any questions, please let me know and I will give you her cell phone number. Photos will follow in a separate email. Best, Patt

ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT 70
1 Honorable Planning Commissioners,
I am Debra DeCray and I own and live at 31121 Bailard Rd. directly below the subject burntout 2 story residence whtch had the garage included within the residence building.

Oppose Project
I strongly oppose approval of this after the fact three (3) variances project because of excessive grading, grading on slopes 2.5 to 1 or greater and for retaining walls up to 24 feet high. All of these are unnecessary and inappropriate for this fire rebuild. This is no longer a rebuild, but a new project.

This proposed project with its needed variances should be denied, revised and redesigned keeping the rebuild within its original footprint plus 10% on the same level as the original residence. The fire department existing approved driveway, parking area and turnaround can be utilized (with or without restoration) without the need for variances.

This project is not in conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, specifically the General Plan Land Use Objective 1.4 which provides for development that is consistent with the preservation of the natural topography and viewshed protection. There are design alternatives that would lessen the grading and negative view impacts.

Proposed Driveway, Garage and Parking Area and Turnaround The need for the three (3) variances is based mainly on relocating the parking and hammerhead turnaround down the slope below the existing one and designing a new and different driveway. While there is some overlap, this not a reconfiguration of the old driveway as the staff report states..

The existing driveway, parking area and hammerhead turnaround was previously approved by the Fire Department. Since this is a fire rebuild, this existing infrastructure was undamaged in the fire and should be grandfathered in. They have supported vehicles and heavy equipment since 1979-over 40 years with no problems, and its retaining walls do not exceed 6 1/.2 feet in height and there is no need massive retaining walls.

The existing driveway, parking and turnaround pad should remain in their current location and restored as warranted.

Since these areas are already graded, it would eliminate the need for almost all if not all the proposed new grading leaving the existing natural topography landforms in place.

By moving the parking/turnaround downslope, it causes the garage and entrance to house to be relocated down the slope and creates the need for massive grading for a new turnaround, parking area, garage and entry which require massive retaining walls It adds an additional 2 levels to the proposed residence.

All the rebuilding should be on the original residence pad with the allowable 10% attached to or under the original pad. This eliminates the need for the variances for new 71 2
grading on steep undisturbed slopes and the need for all or most of the additional high retaining walls.

With respect to the current driveway, it has already been graded, it’s undamaged, serpentine in shape,12 to 15 ft wide and not as steep as the proposed 16 foot wide one. (For comparison, see existing driveway and pad/turnaround on attachment marked “slope analysis” and new proposal on attachment marked proposed slope band analyses).

The driveway is accessed by the existing14 foot wide Ballard Rd. (note Bailard Rd is not 20 feet) Why does the driveway need to be wider than the access road? The existing driveway seems to be sufficient in width and is on slopes less than 2 ½ to one avoiding the need for a variance and can be widened if required by the fire department. Again, by retaining or upgrading the existing driveway it avoids excessive additional grading on the slope and most likely need for more and higher retaining walls.

The applicant stated that the fire department would not approve the current driveway but it was already approved by the fire department and shouldn’t need reapproval.

However, nowhere does it state that the applicant ever sought reapproval of the existing driveway and it was denied.

Septic
The current septic system is located under the existing parking/turnaround pad. It was not damaged in the fire and is in working order as noted on the Environmental Assessment report done after the fire.

For safety, health and to minimize grading, the new upgraded septic should be placed and remain under the existing parking area and not moved 42 feet downslope of the proposed residence into undisturbed terrain. Putting it downslope reduces the current front yard setback from 64 feet to 26 feet and will entail grading a pristine undisturbed 2 ½ to 1to 1 slope slope. By keeping it in its current location, it is safer if it leaks, overflows, or malfunctions because it is not directly above the house below.

The negative impacts of the variances can be eliminated or reduced by building the residence plus 10% on an extended original pad where the pre-fire house, garage and parking, turnaround and septic were located.

Impermeable Surfaces
Although the staff report indicates the plan meets code for impermeable surfaces, the proposed plan adds considerably more impermeable areas on a very steep slope forward of the original residence. The addition of mostly underground garage, foyer, elevator shaft, concrete decks, multiple outdoor staircases add more impermeable surfaces.

The area where the deleted pool was to have been, was graded without a permit and needs to be retstored to its natural state. Any decks or patios in this pool area should 72 3
be removed from this area since there was no hardscape in front of the original house.

Forward and downslope of the pre-fire residence
Variance Findings Can’t Be Made
All the necessary findings for approval cannot be made on any of the three (3) requested variances i.e. grading, construction on slopes of 2.5 to 1 or greater, and retaining walls over 6 feet up to 24 feet in height.

Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

No special circumstances exist justifying the 3 variances. There are design alternatives.

Finding 2. The granting of such variance or modification will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.

Since this property is clearly visible from Pacific Coast Hwy, a scenic highway, this project with its variances will unnecessarily alter land forms that are required to be protected and If this project is approved it will be loose much of its scenic qualities experianced by PCH travelers and local residents. The existing parking pad/ turnaround is flat without the necessity for huge retaining wall to distract from the public view. With the variances this project is detrimental to the public interest. The location of the new septic system directly above the residence below if it malfunctions would be detrimental and injurious to the residence and property directly below. Placing the new system under the existing parking pad/turnaround is safer since if it malfunctions it will not harm the property below.

Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

Prioritizing the Applicant’s ability to maximize hardscape and new infrastructure over the negative impacts from the proposed development would be a special privilege.

The existing infrastructure can be used in this fire rebuild, eliminating the need for the new parking pad and turnaround on an undisturbed slope with the accompanying very high retaining walls and need for the variance. Nowhere does it state that the existing driveway and parking pad/turnaround was presented to the fire department and rejected. Unless the applicant can prove the fire department rejected this previously approved existing infrastructure and unless the applicant can show it is not a special privilege granting of the requested variances it would constitute a special privilege to the Applicant. Approval of grading on steep slopes when there are less onerous options is a special privilege.

Finding 4. The granting of such variance or modification will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this chapter, nor to the goals, objectives 73 4
and policies of the general plan The granting of the variance will be contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, specifically, General Plan Land Use Objective 1.4 which provides for development that is consistent with the preservation of the natural topography and viewshed protection. As discussed earlier, there is a design alternative would lessen view impacts.

Finding 5. The variance or modification request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located.

The variances or modifications requested are not consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone which is to preserve the natural topography and viewshed. A four level structure with a 4 story elevator and a 4 story interior and exterior staircase with 5400 cu. yds. of grading, with 24 ft. High retaining walls is not consistent with the intent of the zoning.

Finding 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variances and modification.

The proposed project isn’t the least environmentally damaging alternative.. It is in a scenic viewshed, is not physically suitable for the proposed variances and modifications due to steep slopes and failure to preserve the natural landforms and environment.

There are alternatives that could reduce the need for the variances.

Finding 7. The variance or modification permit complies with all requirements of state and local law.

It doesn’t meet the requirements of the Coastal Act. It does not conform with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program. The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to and in conflict with the LCP since it doesn’t meet the intent of chapter 6 of the LIP’s Scenic ,Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance and is not the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. It does not comply with the municipal code, thus the need for variances.

Finding 8. All or any necessary conditions have been imposed on the variance or modification as are reasonable to assure that the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the city. (Ord. 261 § 20, 2004) The project may meet code for impermeable surface but the plan adds more structures and impermeable areas 40 feet down a pristine steep slope forward and below of the pre-fire residence. Also, the underground garage, decks, patios and new lower driveway pad add more impermeable surfaces.

According to an earlier staff report, these after the fact requested approvals have not been reviewed by the various city departments, as required; to make sure they are not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the city and surrounding properties.

There are alternate designs that could bring the project into or more in compliance with code and will not be detrimental to the health,safety and welfare of the city.

Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13) LIP Section 13.9 requires that the four findings be made for all CDPs.
74 5
Findings B and D do not apply to this project and are not needed. Finding A and C apply.

Finding A. The project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval , conforms to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program
The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to and in conflict with the LCP since it doesn’t meet the intent of chapter 6 of the LIP’s Scenic ,Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance.The Staff Report state on page 18 Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to, or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. This project is highly visible from PCH, a scenic highway hence the findings of chapter 6 are required.

Therefore,a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed development shall only be granted if the City’s decision-making body is able to find that:

1. The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. There are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.

From the above comments it is clear that all of these findings can’t be made and a CDP approved.

Finding C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

It appears from the slope analysis that the existing driveway is less steep than the proposed one. It already exists and has been graded and can easily be widened with little slope alteration if required by the fire department., The existing parking pad and turnaround is flat and doesn’t require grading on undisturbed slopes therefore the existing driveway and turnaround and parking area is the least environmentally damaging alternative
Requesting Additional Conditions
If you are going to approve the proposed project:

1.Add a condition of approval that all construction equipment and vehicles will be kept on site and there will be no parking on private Bailard Rd. Since the road is only 14 feet wide road any parking would block it. It is also a fire lane with no allowable parking.

2.Add a condition that any damage to the private road or property along the road arising out of construction of this project, including but not limited, to heavy equipment and 75 6
vehicles using the road will be repaired to its existing state by the owner/contractor when the project is completed.

3.Add a condition stating that no pool, pad, or other development infrastructure may be added forward downslope of the residential structure including the proposed patio located where the proposed pool was eliminated.

4. Add a condition that the non permitted grading of this area be returned to its natural grade and condition. (See Photos )

5.Expand Condition 26 (lighting) today the property will adhere to the Dark Sky Ordinance since the project will not be completed until after the Ordinance is in effect.

Thank you for considering my comments and concerns.

Respectfully,
Debra DeCray
Bailard Rd.

Malibu, Ca 90265
76 1
Rebecca Evans
From: Susan Villain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 3:22 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Philip Coronel
Subject: Fwd: Erosion Control and Grading on 31113 Bailard Rd.

Attachments: 2020-02-13 Finaled Building Permit No19-0471.pdf; 2020-02-18 Finaled Grading Permit No 20-0013.pdf; 2020-01-21 Final Grading Inspection.pdf
Hi Rebecca, Philip,
We received a letter a few hours ago from Pat Healy, and the owner, David Ellis has responded to that email, see below and attached. In addition this address a question that came up on site today when I was meeting with Mark Wetton one of the planning commissioners.

Is it possible to please forward this email below to the planning commissioners? Thank You,
Susan Villain To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Vue Ventures Inc
Mobile: .

Email: [email protected]
Website: www.VueVenturesInc.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials and information included in this electronic mail transmission, including all attachments are intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and contain private and confidential Information and are the property of the sender. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and thereafter destroy the message immediately. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributing or copying of this communication and all attachments hereto is strictly prohibited.

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Ellis <
Date: July 18, 2022 at 3:14:53 PM PDT
To: Susan Villain <[email protected]>, Johnathen Day <[email protected]> Cc: Kate Ellis <
Subject: Erosion Control and Grading on 31113 Bailard Rd.

Susan,
77 2
The photos you forwarded to me show erosion control via a combination of grading and sand bags. After the debris removal and house foundation removal, I was contacted by the City of Malibu and told that we needed to grade the property where our slab was for erosion control purposes; the grading and erosion control were required to obtain our debris removal sign‐off.

The sign off for the emergency grading and debris removal are attached.

Best regards,
‐‐
David Ellis
mobile:
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 1
Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 31113 Bailard agenda item 5A Photos
Attachments: 31113bailard- unauthorized grading.docx
Patricia Salazar | Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 245
From:

Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Dennis Smith <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Mark Wetton <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 31113 Bailard agenda item 5A Photos
85 86
87 31113 Bailard grading photograph submitted to staff by Planning Commission member 88

Page 1 of 22 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Philip Coronel, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: July 7, 2022 Meeting date: July 18, 2022 Subject: Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 22-006, and Variance Nos. 21-013, 21-014, and 22-008 – An application for a replacement driveway, and construction of new retaining walls, two-car garage, decking, and non-exempt grading over 1, 000 cubic yards Location: 31113 Bailard Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4470-011-038
Owner: David W. Ellis and Kate Williams Ellis
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 22-006 to allow the reconstruction of an existing driveway and construction of new retaining walls; including Variance (VAR) No. 21-013 for the replacement driveway and to retroactively apply to a two-car garage and decking previously approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire (PVWF) No. 20-046 on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, for a home destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire, located in the Rural Residential, Five-Acre (RR-5) zoning district at 31113 Bailard Road (Ellis and Williams Ellis).

DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a project overview, a summary of the project setting and surrounding land uses, a description of the project scope, an analysis of the project’s consistency with Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the proposed project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Planning Commission
Meeting
07-18-22
Item

5.A.

ATTACHMENT C
89

Page 2 of 22 ends

The subject item was previously noticed as Administrative Plan Review-Woolsey Fire (APRWF) No. 20-062. The application was changed to CDPWF No. 22-006 in light of new information regarding the City’s discretion over issuing coastal development permit exemptions for improvements to existing residences before fire affected residences are constructed. A fire rebuild and onsite wastewater treatment system on the subject property were previously approved, and plan checked. However, that development is now on hold until the proposed driveway and turnaround in compliance with the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) is approved.

Project Overview
The original 3,655 square foot single-family residence was destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire. On May 28, 2020, PVWF No. 20-046 was approved for an in-kind replacement of the original residence plus a 10 percent addition for a 4,020 square foot, single-family residence. On July 22, 2021, De Minimis Waiver (DMW) No. 20-032 was approved for an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). On June 6, 2022, a substantial conformance for PVWF No. 20-046 was approved for a floor plan change to reduce the bulk and mass of the previously approved garage area to preserve existing finished grade adjacent to the residence. The subject application is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

The existing driveway is about 12-15 feet wide and far steeper than allowed by the LACFD.

The City does not have any width or steepness requirements for residential driveways and has relied on the LACFD requirements for access provisions. In the past, if a legal, nonconforming driveway was required to comply with LACFD requirements, grading associated with meeting these safety provisions was entirely contributed to safety grading, which is an exempt category. This has become much more difficult to regulate because driveways are often relocated and modified for other reasons under the guise to comply with LACFD requirements in order to avoid exceeding the total limit of non-exempt grading.

As a result, it has been staff’s policy to 15 feet (75 percent) of the driveway as non-exempt and 5 feet (25 percent) of the driveway as exempt safety. The grading quantities for the project included all driveway grading as safety exempt instead of only including 25 percent of the driveway grading. Since the last hearing date, the project civil engineer has revised the grading verification certificate to follow our current policy, which results in the need for a variance. VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, was subsequently applied to the project.

As stated previously, the residence, attached garage and walkways were previously approved under a Planning Verification for a fire rebuild. Therefore, these improvements are not before the Planning Commission for consideration. Portions of retaining walls and walkways around the residence are located on manufactured slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 90

Page 3 of 22 ends

and the garage is also on these slopes. Up for Planning Commission consideration is a variance for all construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 in addition to all other development associated with the proposed driveway.

The parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The applicant proposed to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter. However, a portion of the proposed two-car garage and deck approved under that application are located on variance slopes and the applicant is requesting after-the-fact approval through the subject application. Additionally, the proposed driveway and the required Fire Department turnaround and access to the garage are proposed on slopes equal to or steeper than 2.5 to 1. The amount of nonexempt grading also exceeds the 1,000 cubic yard maximum allowed by code. The applicant has, therefore, applied for the variances to accommodate the Fire Department turnaround and required driveway improvements as well as the development mentioned above.

Furthermore, the original application was originally approved by other applicable reviewing agencies as an Administrative Planning Review application in addition to the PVWF approved rebuild of the residence. Since the project was originally processed as an APR, some department review sheets still lists the project as an APRWF. The specialists for these other City departments indicated that new review sheets were not needed after the application changed to CDPWF as the scope of work and conditions of approval did not change.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
As shown in Figure 1, the subject property is located in a residential neighborhood.

Surrounding properties along Bailard Road include a mix of one- and two-story, singlefamily residences zoned RR-5 and some multi-family development. The subject parcel is a flag lot which gains access from Bailard Road and is approximately 0.66 acre in size.

The parcel is zoned RR-5 which allows for residential uses (Figure 1). The subject parcel does not contain mapped trails according to the LCP Park Lands Map. Furthermore, the property is not mapped Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer. 91

Page 4 of 22 ends

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph
Source: Malibu GIS 2021
Table 1 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area of the subject parcel.

Table 1 – Total Property Data
Lot Depth 111.5 feet
Lot Width 164 feet
Gross Lot Area 29,067 square feet (0.66 acre)
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes or Easements 4,620 square feet Net Lot Area* 24,780 square feet (0.56 acre)
*Net Lot Area = Gross Lot Area minus the area of access easements and 1 to 1 slopes. 92

Page 5 of 22 ends

Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows (Attachment 2 – Project Plans):

Construction
• Fire Department turnaround and driveway improvements; • Retaining walls; and
• After-the-fact approval of a two-car garage and decking.

Additional Discretionary Request
• VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1; • VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch; and • VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

Proposed Total Development Square Footage (TDSF)
• Main Residence (Approved under PVWF 20-046) 3,595.5 sq. ft. • Attached Garage (Approved under PVWF 20-046) 424.5 sq. ft.

Total: 4,020 sq. ft.

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The LUP contains programs and policies to implement the Coastal Act in the City of Malibu.

The purpose of the LIP is to carry out the policies of the LUP. The LIP contains specific policies and regulations to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere.

There are 14 sections within the LIP that potentially require specified findings to be made, depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these 14, five sections are for conformance review only and require no findings. These five sections include Zoning, Grading and Archaeological / Cultural Resources, Water Quality, and Wastewater Treatment System Standards and are discussed under the Conformance Analysis section.

The nine remaining LIP sections include: 1) Coastal Development Permit findings; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division. These nine sections are discussed under the LIP Findings section. Of these nine, General Coastal Development Permit (including variances) findings, and Hazards findings apply to this project.

Based on the project site, the scope of work, and substantial evidence contained within the record, the ESHA, Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Public 93

Page 6 of 22 ends

Access, and Land Division findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed project for the reasons described herein
LIP Conformance Analysis
The proposed project has been reviewed by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and LACFD (Attachment 3 – Department Review Sheets). The Planning Director has determined that the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable development standards, City goals and policies, and conforms to the property development and design standards of MMC Chapter 17.40 inclusive of the requested variances.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The project is subject to non-beachfront development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Table 2 provides a project summary and indicates the proposed project meets the non-beachfront development standards.

Table 2 summarizes the project’s conformance with residential development standards.

Table 2 – LCP Zoning Conformance (Addition)
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required Proposed Comments
SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard (20% or 65 ft.,
whichever is less) 22.25 ft. 26.25 ft. Complies
Rear Yard 16.58 ft. 26.5 ft. Complies
Side Yard (10% - Min) 16.33 ft. 74.33 ft. Complies
Side Yard (25% - Cumulative) 40.83 ft. 96.67 ft. Complies

PARKING
Enclosed 2 2 Complies
Unenclosed 2 2 Complies

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF) 5,584 sq. ft. 4,020 sq. ft. Complies IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE 7,434 sq. ft. 7,205 sq. ft. Complies HEIGHT (ft.) 28 ft. 28 ft. Complies
NON-EXEMPT GRADING < 1,000 c.y. 2,130 c.y. VAR No. 22-008

FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES/GATES
Retaining Walls 6 ft. 12’, 24’7”, 32’1”
(combined) VAR No. 21-014
94

Page 7 of 22 ends

Grading (MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(9))
As demonstrated in Table 3 below, the project includes 2,130 cubic yards of non-exempt grading. As the project proposes more than 1,000 cubic yards of non-exempt grading, VAR No. 22-008 is requested for the requested amount of non-exempt grading. The total amount of safety and non-exempt grading is almost entirely contributed to the proposed driveway. The proposed driveway has been designed to meet the minimum LACFD requirements for width and steepness. Given the site’s topography and lot flag configuration, a variance for non-exempt grading cannot be avoided.

All quantities listed in cubic yards unless otherwise noted *R&R= Removal and Re-compaction
**Exempt grading includes all R&R, understructure, and safety grading. ***Safety grading is the incremental grading required for Fire Department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads, and turnarounds, and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the LACFD).

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures to be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. The subject site has extensive ground disturbance due to prior grading for the previously existing single-family residence and therefore, the driveway is not expected to have adverse impacts on cultural resources.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. A standard condition of approval for this project requires that prior to the issuance of any development permit, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating construction-phase Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Best Management Practices must be approved by the City Public Works Department. Additionally, the Ocean between Latigo Point and Table 3 – MMC Grading Conformance
Exempt**
R&R* Understructure Safety*** Non-Exempt Remedial Total Cut 40 cy 1,395 cy 1,995 cy 2,070 cy 0 cy 5,500 cy
Fill 40 cy 0 cy 0 cy 60 cy 0 cy 100 cy
Total 80 cy 1,395 cy 1,995 cy 2,130 cy 0 cy 5,600 cy
Import 0 cy 0 cy 0 cy 0 cy 0 cy 0 cy
Export 0 cy 1,395 cy 1,995 cy 2,010 cy 0 cy 5,400 cy
95

Page 8 of 22 ends

the West City limits have been established by the State Water Resource Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. A standard condition of approval for this project requires that the applicant shall provide a drainage system that addresses ASBS requirements. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards. With the implementation of these conditions, the project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS standards. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The project includes an OWTS to serve the proposed development, which has been reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator. This property already has an approved septic system which includes a 2,493-gallon MicroSeptec treatment tank utilizing two seepage pits and proposing two future seepage pits all located in the southwestern portion of the property.

LIP Findings
A. Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
LIP Section 13.9 requires that the following four findings be made for all CDPs.

Finding 1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The project is located in the RR-5 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The project is for a driveway reconfiguration, addition of retaining walls and additional non-exempt grading. The proposed project is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and WD29. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

Finding 2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). 96

Page 9 of 22 ends

The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Finding 3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The following alternatives to the project were considered to determine the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative:

1. Alternative Project - The proposed driveway is limited in where it could be located because it must be located within a narrow flag staff of a flag lot and must meet the LACFD requirements for steepness, width and turnaround. The driveway has been located and designed to minimize grading and height of retaining walls to the greatest extent feasible while still complying with LACFD requirements. The garage could be relocated below the residence; however, this would increase the height of the residence in excess of the maximum allowed and would not be expected to reduce grading or height of retaining walls. These alternative relocation options are not the least environmentally damaging alternative.

2. Smaller project - A smaller driveway, retaining walls or encroachment on steep slopes is possible. However, a smaller driveway, shorter retaining walls and encroachment into steep slopes to accommodate a five-foot wide access around the residence mean that the access to the approved residence will not be in compliance with LACFD requirements. As mentioned previously, the garage could be relocated below residence. While this option would avoid construction on steep slopes, the overall height of the residence will far exceed the maximum allowed.

The approved replacement residence and garage result in only a 10 percent increase to the previously fire destroyed residence and garage. The previously approved and proposed development complies with the maximum allowable TDSF, impermeable coverage, setbacks, and height requirements of the LCP. The development does not disturb any public or private protected views. As such, it is not anticipated that a smaller or relocated project would be feasible or a substantially environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the proposed project, as designed, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

3. Proposed Project - The proposed project consists of the reconstruction of an existing driveway and construction of new retaining walls; including VAR No. 21- 013 for the replacement driveway and to retroactively apply to a two-car garage and decking previously approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire (PVWF) No. 20-046 on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards, for a home destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire. As such, it is not anticipated that a smaller addition would be feasible or an 97

Page 10 of 22 ends

environmentally superior alternative. The selected location has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC.

Finding 4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer, as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Therefore, Environmental Review Board review was not required, and this finding does not apply.

B. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 2.5 to 1 (LIP Section 13.26) A variance is proposed to allow reconstruction of the garage of the single-family residence and associated development on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1. LIP Section 13.26.5 requires that the City makes ten findings in consideration and approval of a variance. Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 21-013 are made as follows:

Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

The parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The surrounding neighborhood was constructed in the 1960s to 1970s, when the City was still unincorporated Los Angeles County. Before cityhood, these parcels were developed without the need for variances for construction on steep slopes as evident with surrounding neighbors, which were built into the hillside similarly to the proposed development (Figure 1 above). The applicant proposed to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists mostly of 3 to 1 slopes or flatter. However, a portion of the proposed two-car garage and deck under that application are located on variance slopes and are requesting after-the-fact approval through the subject application. This after-the-fact approval was the result of the applicant trying to rebuild the destroyed residence while trying to bring the development closer into conformance with today’s fire safety access requirements. Additionally, the proposed driveway and the required Fire Department turnaround, access to the garage and decking are proposed on slopes equal to or steeper 98

Page 11 of 22 ends

than 2.5 to 1. Therefore, residential development on the subject property may not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to

1. Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.

The proposed variance will allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will substantially improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed construction is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude a single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner.

Finding 4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a single-family residence and associated development are allowed in the RR-5 zoning district. As previously stated in Section A, with the inclusion of the variance, the project is consistent with the LCP, the Coastal Act, and other applicable regulations. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.
99

Page 12 of 22 ends

Finding 5. For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible alternative for siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Finding 6. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP.

The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Finding 7. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located. A variance shall not be granted for a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.

The variance request is for development on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 to provide the required Fire Department turnaround and driveway to the property in compliance with LACFD as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

Finding 8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site, however, construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 cannot be avoided. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Finding 9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the required driveway and Fire Department turnaround will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. 100

Page 13 of 22 ends

Finding 10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

C. Variance for Construction of Retaining Walls in Excess of Six Feet in Height A variance is proposed to allow the height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch. LIP Section

13.26.5 requires that the City makes ten findings in consideration and approval of a variance. Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 21-014 are made as follows:

Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

However, the proposed driveway and required Fire Department turnaround are proposed on steep slopes which require retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department access and associated required grading. Therefore, residential development on the subject property would not be feasible without the granting of a variance for construction retaining walls in excess of six feet in height.

Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.

Page 14 of 22 ends

reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag staff portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to comply with LACFD maximum slope for a driveway.

Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property.

The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

Finding 4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage, will increase the protection of the subject property and surrounding residences from fire hazards. The steepness of the proposed driveway and Fire Department turnaround will meet the maximum permitted by the LACFD. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.

The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Finding 6. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP. 102

Page 15 of 22 ends

The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

The variance request is for construction of retaining walls in excess of six feet in height up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls) to allow LACFD-required access to a replacement residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. This variance will help provide the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

Finding 8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flag staff that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The retaining walls over six feet in height, up to a maximum of 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch (for a combination of two walls), were specifically designed to provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Finding 9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the retaining walls over six feet in height will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

Finding 10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
103

Page 16 of 22 ends

D. Variance for Non-exempt Grading Over 1,000 Cubic Yards, Not to Exceed 2,130 Cubic Yards
A variance is proposed to allow non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards. LIP Section 13.26.5 requires that the City makes ten findings in consideration and approval of a variance. Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 22-008 are made as follows:

Finding 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

As previously mentioned in Section A, the parcel’s topography consists of steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag staff portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The owner has been granted a Planning Department approval to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter. However, given the site’s topography and LACFD requirements for access, the proposed five-foot walkway around the residence, driveway and turnaround result in non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Therefore, residential development on the subject property would not be feasible without a variance for nonexempt grading to exceed the maximum allowed for a residential lot.

The proposed variance will allow LACFD-required access for the reconstruction of a fire rebuild on its current flatter pad. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed grading is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

Finding 3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag staff portion of the lot, containing a long 104

Page 17 of 22 ends

steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards.

Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property.

Finding 4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Finding 6. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP.

The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

The variance request is for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards to allow LACFDrequired access to a replacement residence destroyed by the Woolsey Fire. This variance will help provide the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage for the single-family residential development in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the variance request does not 105

Page 18 of 22 ends

authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

Finding 8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flagpole that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The additional grading will provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Finding 9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Additional non-exempt grading will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

Finding 10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As determined by the City Biologist, the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, the subject parcel does not contain ESHA. Therefore, the findings of LIP Section 4.7.6 are not applicable.

F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
There are no native trees on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 are not applicable.

G. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to, or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. As discussed 106

Page 19 of 22 ends

previously, the proposed development does not appear to be visible any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area, including from the nearest planned but unimproved trail, Zuma Ridge Trail, located approximately 30 feet away at its nearest point. Therefore, the findings in LIP Chapter 6 are not applicable.

H. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
According to LIP Section 7.2, transfer of development credits only applies to land divisions and multi-family development in specified zones. The proposed project does not include a land division or multi-family development. Therefore, LIP Chapter 7 does not apply.

I. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity.

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, and WD29.

The required findings are made as follows:

Finding 1. The project, as proposed will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The applicant submitted geotechnical and soils engineering report prepared on September 18, 2020 by GeoConcepts Inc. This report is on file at City Hall or available online at MalibuCity.org/OnBase. The report evaluates site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues.

Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area and earthquake-induced landslide zone. 107

Page 20 of 22 ends

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an impact on wildfire hazards. The property is currently subject to wildfire, however, the proposed addition to the home on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire. Nonetheless, the applicant will be required to record a deed restriction acknowledging and assuming the hazard risk of fires at the site.

The deed restriction shall indemnify and hold the City and City staff harmless against any liability of the permitted project as the entire parcel is in a high-risk wildfire zone area.

Earthquake-Induced Landslide Hazard
Analysis for potential hazards included review of the submitted geotechnical report prepared by GeoConcepts Inc. dated September 18, 2020. The geotechnical report states that the property is located more than 500 feet away from the Malibu Coast Fault which will not require special site investigations. Therefore, a fault rupture hazard investigation is not required. As such, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As previously stated in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The proposed addition to the residence will take advantage of the previously disturbed building pad to minimize site disturbance.

Finding 4. There are no alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department and LACFD. These specialists and agency determined that the 108

Page 21 of 22 ends

proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As such, there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified Malibu LCP.

As previously discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

J. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
LIP Chapter 10 applies to land that is located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff top fronting the shoreline. The project site is not located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff top fronting the shoreline. Therefore, LIP Chapter 10 does not apply.

K. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
LIP Section 12.4 requires public access for lateral, bluff-top, and vertical access near the ocean, trails, and recreational access for the following cases:

A. New development on any parcel or location specifically identified in the Land Use Plan or in the LCP zoning districts as appropriate for or containing a historically used or suitable public access trail or pathway.

B. New development between the nearest public roadway and the sea.

C. New development on any site where there is substantial evidence of a public right of access to or along the sea or public tidelands, a blufftop trail or an inland trail acquired through use or a public right of access through legislative authorization.

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

As described herein, the subject property and the proposed project do not meet any of these criteria in that no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property, and the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, or on a bluff, and the project does not adversely impact existing public access. The requirement for public access of LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.
109

Page 22 of 22 ends

L. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
This project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 15 are not applicable.

CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has received public correspondence regarding this project (Attachment 4). Staff has received five letters of support from the public. Additionally, staff has met with two members of the public who voiced concerns of over-development with the proposed driveway and retaining walls. Staff continues to support the proposed scope of work as it improves fire access to the residence and is the minimum necessary to meet LACFD requirements, which were not previously met for the original residence with the existing driveway and turnaround.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On June 23, 2022, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 5).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-44

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Public Correspondence

5. Public Hearing Notice
110
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 22-44

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On April 29, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.

C. On July 20, 2021, Variance (VAR) Nos. 21-013 and 21-014 were added to the project for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, and for height of retaining walls over six feet in height.

D. On August 30, 2021, the APRWF application was deemed complete for processing.

F. On November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain to address grading quantities and inquiries from a Planning Commissioner.

G. On April 4, 2022, VAR No. 22-008 was added to the project for additional nonexempt grading exceeding 1,000 cubic yards not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

DRAFT 111
Resolution No 22-44

Page 2 of 16 ends

I. On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject application to a date certain. A new Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was not required.

J. On June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject application to a date uncertain.

K. On June 21, 2022, the subject application was changed from APRWF No. 20-062 to Coastal Development Permit Woolsey Fire (CDPWF) No. 22-006.

M. On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

DRAFT 112
Resolution No 22-44

Page 3 of 16 ends

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-5 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The project is for a driveway reconfiguration, addition of retaining walls and additional non-exempt grading. The proposed project is requesting VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1, VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but not to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch, and VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and WD29. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

2. The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

B. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 2.5 to 1 (LIP Section 13.26)

DRAFT 113
Resolution No 22-44

Page 4 of 16 ends

______________________

Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner.

The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of LIP Chapters 8 and 13, nor the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

DRAFT 114
Resolution No 22-44

Page 5 of 16 ends

______________________

9. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the required driveway and Fire Department turnaround will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants. The project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

C. Variance for Construction of Retaining Walls over Six Feet in Height (MMC Chapter

17.72)

DRAFT 115
Resolution No 22-44

Page 6 of 16 ends

______________________

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

D. Variance for Non-Exempt Grading over 1,000 Cubic Yards, Not to Exceed 2,130 Cubic Yards (MMC Chapter 17.72)

1. As previously mentioned in Section A, the parcel’s topography consists of steep DRAFT 116
Resolution No 22-44

Page 7 of 16 ends

______________________
slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway on slopes that are between 3 to 1 and 1 to 1. The owner has been granted a Planning Department approval to rebuild the destroyed residence through PVWF No. 20-046 within the previously existing building pad which consists of mostly 3 to 1 slopes or flatter.

2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a flatter pad for the required Fire Department turnaround to provide required ingress and egress to the property as well as access into the garage. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public’s interest, safety, health or welfare and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone as the subject property. The granting of the proposed variance will improve the safety and welfare of the subject property owners and other surrounding homeowners as the proposed grading is designed to provide Fire Department access. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD for conformance with the MMC and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. As previously stated, the site’s topography contains steep slopes on the northern and southern portions of the lot with most of the flag portion of the lot, containing a long steep driveway. There is no other area on the property that could be utilized for the Fire Department access, which requires non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Therefore, approval of the variance will grant relief from a technical development standard, which if strictly applied, would preclude single-family development on the subject property. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the RR-5 zoning district. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owners.

5. The requested variance is not associated with ESHA or ESHA buffer standards.

Therefore, this finding does not apply.

6. The requested variance is not associated with any stringline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Page 8 of 16 ends

______________________
or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject property.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the lot contains a long steep flagpole that leads to a graded pad at the top and center of the property. The additional grading will provide the proper safety measures for ingress and egress by the project’s civil engineer in compliance with LACFD requirements. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department for structural integrity and stability and determined that the project site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

10. The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Fire Department turnaround and driveway improvements; b. Retaining walls; and
c. After-the-fact approval of a two-car garage and decking; d. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 21-013 for construction on slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1; ii. VAR No. 21-014 for height of retaining walls over six feet in height but to exceed 24 feet, 7 inches and a combined height up to 32 feet, 1 inch; and iii. VAR No. 22-008 for non-exempt grading over 1,000 cubic yards, not to exceed 2,130 cubic yards.

DRAFT 118
Resolution No 22-44

Page 9 of 16 ends

______________________

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped June 6, 2022. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

8. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

11. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

DRAFT 119
Resolution No 22-44

Page 10 of 16 ends

______________________

12. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.

Cultural Resources

Demolition/Solid Waste

17. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.

Construction / Framing

19. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.

DRAFT 120
Resolution No 22-44

Page 11 of 16 ends

______________________

22. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

Color and Materials

Biology/Landscaping

DRAFT 121
Resolution No 22-44

Page 12 of 16 ends

______________________

Public Works

30. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

Page 13 of 16 ends

______________________
grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
DRAFT 123
Resolution No 22-44

Page 14 of 16 ends

______________________

35. The consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

Geology

Environmental Health

Page 15 of 16 ends

______________________
replacement in order to bring it into compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

Prior to Occupancy

Fixed Conditions

46. This Coastal Development Permit Woolsey Fire runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

47. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and termination of all rights there under.

Deed Restrictions

DRAFT 125
Resolution No 22-44

Page 16 of 16 ends

______________________
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 2022. __________________________________________
KRAIG HILL, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT 126
ATTACHMENT 2
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155

BIOLOGY REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
JOB ADDRESS: 31113 BAILARD RD
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Susan Villain, Vue Ventures, Inc.

APPLICANT ADDRESS: 3829 Calle Joaquin
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 409-9008
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: reconstruction of driveway(new configuration), new retaining walls
Calabasas, CA 91302
PROJECT NUMBER: CDPWF 22-006
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Philip Coronel
TO:

The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed project design
(See Attached).

The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Requires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

Signature Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
X
7/5/22
156
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Page 1 of 2 ends

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Susan Villain,
[email protected]
Project Address: 31113 BAILARD RD
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: APRWF 20-062
Project Description: reconstruction of driveway(new configuration), new retaining walls, and new pool.

Date of Review: January 4, 2021
Reviewer:

Dave Crawford Signature:

Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 12/10/20
Site Survey: 12/10/20
Landscape Plan:

Hydrozone Plan:

Irrigation Plan:

Fuel Modification Plan:

Grading Plan: 12/10/20
OWTS Plan:

Bio Assessment:

Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews:

REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.

APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.

CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 157
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
APRWF 20-062
31113 Bailard Road
January 4, 2021

Page 2 of 2 ends

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:

A. No new landscaping is proposed with this project. Therefore, none is approved. Should the applicant intend to plant any new vegetation with a potential to exceed six feet in height, or change 500/2,500 square feet or more (new residence/existing residence)of the existing landscaping area, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any planting.

B. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
158

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Susan Villain, Vue Ventures, Inc.

APPLICANT ADDRESS: 3829 Calle Joaquin
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 409-9008
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: reconstruction of driveway(new configuration), new retaining walls
Calabasas, CA 91302
PROJECT NUMBER: CDPWF 22-006
JOB ADDRESS: 31113 BAILARD RD
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.

Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheet(s) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.

OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
7-1-2022
See conditions per Environmental Health review letter dated January 5, 2021 (APRWF 20-062) 159

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
The applicant must submit to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Specialist to determine whether or not an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) Plot Plan approval is required.

The Environmental Health Specialist may be contacted Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 am to 11:00 am, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 364.

Rev 141008
160
City of Malibu
Environmental Health ● Environmental Sustainability Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-7650 · www.malibucity.org

Page 1 of 3 ends

C:\Users\Solishia Andico\Desktop\210105_31113 Bailard Rd_APRWF 20-062_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email
address)
Susan Villain, Vue Ventures, Inc.
[email protected]
Project Address: 31113 Bailard Road
Malibu, California 90265
Planning Case No.: APRWF 20-062
Project Description: Reconstruction of driveway (new configuration), new retaining walls, and new pool.

Date of Review: January 5, 2021
Reviewer: Matt Janousek Signature:

Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 307 Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Architectural Plans: Coscia Day: Plans dated 3-15-2020 (received 12-30-2020) Fixture Worksheet:

Operating Permit:

OWTS Assessment: Ely Jr’s Pumping: Form dated 2-4-2020 (conditionally passed).

Geology Report: GeoConcepts: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering report dated 9-18-2020; OWTS Supporting Geologic report dated 9-30-2020 Miscellaneous:

Previous Approval:

Previous Reviews: None. EH BPC review of PVWF 20-046 for In-kind rebuild +10% dated 11-18-2020. EH conformance review of DMW 20-032 for new OWTS dated 1-5-2021

REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The listed conditions of Planning stage conformance review and plan check review comments shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.

CONFORMANCE REVIEW INCOMPLETE for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC.

The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.

OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Environmental Health conformance review has been completed for the development proposal described in the project description provided by the Planning Department and the project plans and reports submitted to this office. Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project consultants and, prior to final approval, provide a coordinated submittal addressing all conditions for final approval and plan check items.

The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) Plot Plan and project construction drawings (during Building 161
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
APRWF 20-062
31113 Bailard Road
January 5, 2021

Page 2 of 3 ends

C:\Users\Solishia Andico\Desktop\210105_31113 Bailard Rd_APRWF 20-062_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.

Conditions of Planning Conformance Review for Building Plan Check Approval:
1) OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan and Grading Plans must show: (1) the existing OWTS, including the septic tank and seepage pits clearly labeled as “to be abandoned”; and (2) the proposed OWTS, including the treatment tank and present/future seepage pits.
2) OWTS Plot Plan: A plot plan drawn to scale shall be submitted showing all existing improvements, proposed improvements, and all components of the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). At least one copy of the plot plan showing essential features of the OWTS must fit on an 11” x 17” sheet leaving a 5” left margin clear to provide space for a City-applied legend on approvals. The OWTS plan must show the existing OWTS to be abandoned and the proposed new OWTS.
3) Upgrade to the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A new advanced OWTS must be installed. In accordance with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP), the appropriate permit must be obtained from the Planning Division. The new OWTS must be approved and installed with final inspection by the Building Safety Department prior to occupancy of the structure. 4) Compliance Agreement for Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Repair, Modification, Upgrade or Replacement: A compliance agreement running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said compliance agreement shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the OWTS serving subject property is not functioning properly and/or is in need of repair or replacement in order to bring it into compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
5) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health Building Plan Check review.

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
162
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
APRWF 20-062
31113 Bailard Road
January 5, 2021

Page 3 of 3 ends

Malibu City CouncilFebruary 27, 2023

Malibu City Council
February 27, 2023