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.
56. 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.
57. A grading and drainage pian 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 ofland 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 ofgrading, areas disturbed for the installation ofthe 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 ofgrading shall be included within the area delineated; e. Ifthe property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identil5’ing the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing ofthese 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.
h. Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe grading permit.
58. A digital drawing (Aut0CAD) ofthe project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet ofthe 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.
59. 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.
60. 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 143
Resolution No 21-68
part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. 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 stormwater 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.
61. 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:
Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Water Conservation Practices Non-Storm Water Management 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 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.
62. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe 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 ofthe pre-development and post-development drainage ofthe site. The SWMP shall identil~’ the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design ofthe 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. 144
Resolution No 21-68
63. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe 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 QQMP shall meet all the requirements ofthe City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (M54) 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 ofthe proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. 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
g. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time ofsubmittal for review ofthe WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval ofthe 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 veri~’ the installation ofthe BMP’s, make any revisions to the 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.
64. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
Geology
65. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City Geologist 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 staff prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
66. Final plans approved by the City Geologist 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. 145
Resolution No 21-68
Swimming Pool / Spa
67. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pooi and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).
68. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section
3.5.3(A).
69. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall.
70. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only ifthe following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach in to the M54 or to the ASBS (including tributaries).
71. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
72. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section l3.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration andlor pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
Environmental Health
73. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe scale ofthe 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).
74. A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). 146
Resolution No 21-68
75. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms offlow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even ifthe design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description ofproposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.
State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package’ systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day.
Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:
For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.
76. Final plans shall clearly show the locations of all existing OWTS components (serving pre existing development) to be abandoned and provide procedures for the OWTS’ proper abandonment in conformance with the MMC.
77. The following note shall be added to the plan drawings included with the OWTS final design: “Prior to commencing work to abandon, remove, or replace the existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) components, an ~OWTS Abandonment Permit’ shall be obtained from the City of Malibu. All work performed in the OWTS abandonment, removal or replacement area shall be performed in strict accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental and occupational safety and health regulatory requirements. The obtainment of any such required permits or approvals for this scope of 147
Resolution No 21-68
work shall be the responsibility ofthe applicant and their agents.”
78. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage pians shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
79. Proofof ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
80. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider ofthe proposed OWTS.
81. A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Please note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.
82. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder ofthe fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
83. Project geologist/geotechnical consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
84. City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
85. Planning department final approval of OWTS plans shall be obtained.
86. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit.
Prior to Occupancy
87. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.
88. 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 Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.
148
Resolution No 21-68
89. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning Department conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
90. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.
91. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part ofthe approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Fixed Conditions
92. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
93. Violation ofany ofthe conditions ofthis approval may be cause for revocation ofthis permit and termination of all rights granted there under.
Deed Restrictions
94. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemni& 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 ofthe 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 Planning Department staff prior to final Planning Department approval.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certi& the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20hl~ day of September 2021. ission Chair
ATTEST:
PATRICIA SALAZ~” , Recording Secretary
—-.-“I ‘JENNINt’,P~
149
Resolution No 2 1-68
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.
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO.21-68 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 20th day ofSeptember 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Smith, Weil, Jennings
NOES: 2 Commissioner: Hill
ABSTAIN: 1 Commissioner: Mazza
ABSENT: 0
PATRICIA SALA~AR, Recording Secretary
150
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: Planning commission meeting 9/20/21
Attachments: a letter of Written comments for Malibu Planning Commission meeting re 6968 Dume DriveREVISED.docx; 5.PNG; 6.jpg; 7.PNG; 8.jpg; 9.jpg; 10.jpg; 11.jpg From: john roesler
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:25 AM
To: Patricia Salazar; Planning Commission
Subject: Planning commission meeting 9/20/21
Hi Patricia,
Please distribute the attached letter and photos to the Malibu Planning Commission members in relation to item 5 on tonight's agenda.
Sincerely,
John Roesler MD
151
July 20, 2020
Revised January 25, 2021
Revised September 20, 2021
Dear Malibu Planning Commission,
My property at drive shares the border with 6968 Dume drive, APN 4466-015-015.
Regarding the informal assessment of my view (performed by Didier Murillo, Associate Planner, and Johana Valencia, Planning Technician, on August 24th, 2021) being used to determine my view rights in relation to the proposed development at 6968 Dume drive, (see Addendum A below), I have not been allowed sufficient time to trim trees on my property, obtain the proper permit to trim a protected tree on my property (Sycamore), contact / request that the owner of 6968 Dume drive needs to trim trees on their property which would allow for View Restoration, and subsequently apply for and obtain a Primary View Determination. Note that the proposed development at 6968 Dume drive was in ‘redesign’, which I was hopeful would significantly address my concerns (which it did not), and I was informed of completion of the ‘redesigned’ plans on July 22nd, 2021, but was not able to view the designs due to ‘copyright’ of the architectural plans, until August 24th, 2021. As well, for the record, when Didier Murillo visited my property on site on August 24th, 2021, he acknowledged the impact on my view was much easier to see in person than to photograph, and said ‘I’m going to propose pulling this project on account of the view impact when I speak to the Planning director.’ Strangely, the next email from Didier Murillo and all correspondence to follow stated the opposite. I do not know what changed his opinion from one day to the next. In any case, and specifically relating to the above, I am opposed to a determination for approval of CDP No.17-088 and Site Plan Review No.19- 030 at the Malibu Planning Commission public hearing on September 20th.
Specifically, relating to my Primary View rights (Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.40.040(17), I am opposed to approval of the proposed roof height over 18 feet (SPR No.19-030). Both the position / setback from Dume drive of the proposed residence on the property and the height of 28 feet results in obstruction of Santa Monica Mountain views from my property. A primary view determination has not been established for my property. I am asserting for the public record, based on my observation of the story poles from my kitchen window and from my back deck, that the proposed development will significantly negatively visually impact my property views. I have attached my own photos, both from winter when the Sycamore trees (deciduous) have no leaves, and from yesterday, after I undertook the felling of one of my pine trees, and tied back some Sycamore branches (soon to be removed via an arborist / with permit), clearly showing the decidedly negative impact of the proposed development on my view of the Santa Monica mountains. I propose that the owner / applicant / architect for 6968 Dume drive consider 152
the following reasonable alternatives as possibilities that would substantially resolve my concerns:
1. Grade the property on the building site such that the overall height of the house, when completed, will be at least 10 feet lower than is currently proposed.
2. Move the building site closer to Dume drive, with improved alignment with my own house, to avoid view conflicts (this would be my preference of the two options).
I would like to know the exact proposed resolutions / response to the following concerns if they have been addressed by the owner / developer and the Malibu Planning Commission / Building Code Enforcement
As the neighbor at , sharing the property line to the west of 6968 Dume drive, I oppose the development proposed, as well as certain findings of the Commission Agenda Report, and as well I oppose the proposed resolution of Code Violation No. 20-014, which was incomplete as to the scope of code violation findings, with failure to adequately take into account the degree of unpermitted grading, height over 6 feet of the unpermitted retaining wall, unpermitted landscaping > 6 feet height (front and sideyard ficus), unpermitted demolition of a structure on the property, and unpermitted new drainage directed onto my property along the retaining wall, which will cause erosion and environmental changes negatively affecting my property, and specifically affecting the immediate sideyard land and seasonal stream within the ravine on my property. No officials from the Malibu building or planning department ever contacted me or visited my property at the time of the Code Violation, and this has resulted in what I feel is a factually inaccurate evaluation of the Code Violation and assessment of the effects of the proposed development on my property and view.
Regarding the unpermitted demolition: prior to the unpermitted grading, a separate structure approximately the size of a standard trailer home existed and was demolished. Considering the age of the existing house dating to 1953, it is probable that asbestos was present in the demolished structure and was improperly released into the environment, causing significant harm. This should be further investigated and relevant biological reports and remediation, if appropriate, should be undertaken. I reported this demolition when I called the city to check if the demolition / grading / construction being done was permitted, which it was not, and resulted in the Code Violation.
Regarding the unpermitted grading and construction of the retaining wall: prior to this work the 6968 Dume drive property significantly sloped in the front with an approximately 25% grade downward, as that property’s land approached the property line and ravine / seasonal stream on my property. A cement retaining wall of variable height, but well over 6 feet high in some areas, now exists, with dirt infill having also been done, such that the previously seamless transition of property elevation along the property line now is distorted and unappealing visually, with the actual land on the 6968 Dume drive side now elevated over 6 feet above my own land. The result of this is visually unacceptable and has negative acoustic implications for my house / property, particularly relating to the positioning of the driveway and garage area near this 153
property line, and the new elevation in addition prevents reasonable and legal construction of a 6 foot cement privacy / noise reduction wall on my side, which would protect me from sound and visual nuisance during construction and thereafter. I am requesting removal of the dirt infill, change of the degree of elevation in the plans back to the original grade, and further drainage studies / engineering such that my property should not be impacted negatively. As well, the standard procedure for obtaining a variance to allow for a sideyard wall (retaining or otherwise), over 6 feet, should be undertaken prior to issuing a building permit.
For the reasons elaborated above, which are entirely verifiable if staff from the Malibu Planning Commission would visit my property and conduct the proper visual assessments, I am requesting that Coastal Development Permit No. 17-088 not be issued at this time. I am requesting that Site Plan Review No. 19-030 be revised. I am requesting that Demolition Permit No. 19-023 not be issued at this time. I am requesting that Code Violation No. 20-014 needs further investigation and remediation.
In addition to this written statement, I am also submitting additional photographs which document my concerns. These concerns remain unresolved with the property owner / developer / architect.
Sincerely,
John Roesler, M.D.
Related questions to the above:
Is a new driveway property line CMU wall on revised submitted plans? Was proper testing for asbestos done prior to illegal demolition of the structure mentioned above?
After a Code Violation, is it customary to require the party in violation to immediately remediate / restore the unpermitted construction / grading / etc… to the original condition? If so, why has the owner / developer of 6968 Dume drive been exempt?
154
Addendum A:
Email response to me from Didier Murillo 9/13/21
Good morning Dr. Roesler,
The agenda packet was published last week. As an interested party on the application, you should have received notice of it via email. I have cc’ed Patricia Salazar to this email (she will be covering as Planning Commission Recording Secretary since Kathleen’s retirement). I cc’ed her so your email can be distributed as correspondence to our Planning Commissioners for their consideration.
You may also reach out to them. Please see the attached PDF document.
Didier Murillo | Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 353
Malibu, CA - Official Website - Planning Department
From: john roesler
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Didier Murillo <[email protected]>
Cc: Johana Valencia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: proposed september 20th planning commission hearing
Good morning Didier and Johana,
I wanted to bring you both up to date and plead / request to have the September 20th planning commission hearing relating to discussion / potential approval of the proposed development project next to my residence postponed by 1 month. The reason for this is that, relating to the (previously unbeknownst to me) protection of the sycamore tree(s) and related restrictions in trimming these trees, it has proven impossible for me to get an arborist to obtain the official permit to trim the branches from the tree which, in substantial part, are blocking my mountain views. I have already scheduled for the work to be done, at enormous cost to me I might add, which will also include complete 155
removal of the pine tree, which is similarly contributing to blocking my mountain view. I'm more than happy to discuss the situation by zoom with either / both of you, and prove that I am working as fast as possible to obtain the permit and get this work done. You were both physically present on my back deck for the unofficial view determination discussion, and you know that I have a potentially significant mountain view which is currently primarily blocked by my own trees, and that the quality of this view, if improved, would affect the decision to approve / disapprove the height variance that the developer is requesting. It took some time for me to understand my lawful view rights, relating to the proposed development next door, and I should be allowed sufficient time to implement a permitted tree trimming plan, which will allow me to exercise the protection of my view rights relating to the proposed development. This was the intent of the view protection ordinance after all. I am not asking for an unreasonable amount of time to get the work done, 1 month, so I hope that you will consider this request favorably. If not, I'll potentially be forced to exercise my rights at the hearing through legal representation and / or appeal of any approval decision for the proposed development, which will cost everyone significant time and money, and certainly more substantially delay any progression of the development project.
Sincerely,
John Roesler, MD
On Monday, August 30, 2021, 08:37:58 AM PDT, Didier Murillo <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Dr. Roesler,
Sorry for the late response. I showed the pictures to our Assistant Director last week. Based on the pictures we are going to move forward with the recommendation of approval of the project.
Based on the pictures I took it is not expected that the project would block any impressive scenes of the mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines. We are moving forward with the project as recommended.
However, please be advised that you may present picture evidence closer to the hearing date that may show otherwise, for the Planning Commissioners consideration. There was quite a bit of overgrown foliage that you may trim. However, please don’t remove any trees from your property that may be protected trees. It is always in your best interest to submit any plans prior to any work to avoid Code 156
Enforcement. Typically, we would ask that you coordinate with our counter staff for new work. However, since Johana is familiar with your property you can coordinate with her directly.
Here are the upcoming milestones for the hearing date for your reference. • The project is scheduled for the September 20th Planning Commission Hearing (via zoom and starts at 6:30 p.m.)
• The draft report is due tomorrow August 31st
• The final report and agenda will be published and available for your review on September 9th. • You may submit any correspondence, pictures, etc., for the Planning Commissioners consideration any time until the date of the hearing.
• When the agenda gets published you will be provided with an email that goes to our Planning Commissioners along with information on how to register as a public speaker. You will have three minutes to provide the commission with your concerns.
Based on our conversation you mentioned that you would be agreeable to the project being redesigned to align the proposed new house next to your house to avoid any views from your backyard deck. I will include that in the staff report and will inform the project team of such.
If any new information arises, I will send you an email.
Thank you.
Didier Murillo | Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 353
Malibu, CA - Official Website - Planning Department
From: john roesler
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 1:32 PM
To: Didier Murillo <[email protected]>
Subject: update?
157
Hi Didier,
Any follow-up on our in person discussion / informal view survey re development next door to my property?
Thanks,
John
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
City of Malibu City Planning Commission (Item #5C)
6968 Dume Drive, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4466‐015‐015
September 20th, 2021
SUBMITTED BY ROBYN MORUZZI
166
Project History
• March 30th, 2018 ‐ Application Submitted.
• July 20th, 2020 ‐ 1st Planning Commission hearing for CDP No. 17‐ 088, SPR No. 19‐030, DP No. 19‐023.
• The applicant requested to reschedule the project to provide an opportunity to modify the project based on the neighbor, Dr. John Roesler concerns on the project design.
• Applicant/Property Owner modified the project to address the neighbor concerns.
167
Looking Northwest
168
Looking Southwest
169
Proposed Design Layout
Garage SFR
170
Proposed Design Layout– Front Yard Setback
65 feet
Front Yard
Setback
112’ Setback
171
Proposed Design Layout– Side Yard Setback
21’ Side Yard Setback
14’ Side Yard Setback
184’‐9”
Rear Yard Setback
172
Proposed Design Layout – 2/3rds Ratio Diagram
5 173
174
Dr. John Roesler’s Opposition Letter on July 20th, 2020 (Neighbor at 6980 Dume Drive)
I am requesting removal of thedirt infill, change of the degree of elevation in the plans back to the
original grade.
175
Project Plan Revisions from July 20th, 2020
Planning Commission Hearing
Reorient the garage to face Dume Drive to
address privacy concerns and visual impacts
from neighbor.
176
Previously Proposed Design Layout
July 20th, 2020 Planning Commission
177
Current Design Layout
September 20th, 2021 Planning Commission
178
Project Plan Revisions from July 20th, 2020
Planning Commission Hearing
Elimination of the previously proposed dual
retaining walls “pre‐violation condition.”
179
Previously Proposed Design Layout
July 20th, 2020 Planning Commission
Dual Retaining
Walls
180
Total Non‐Exempt
831 c.y.
Previously Proposed Design Layout
July 20th, 2020 Planning Commission
181
Total Non‐Exempt
729 c.y.
Current Design Layout
September 20th, 2021 Planning Commission
182
Facing Northeast from 6968 Dume Drive (subject property) in 2021 183
Facing Northeast from 6968 Dume Drive (subject property) in 2021 184
Total Non‐Exempt
729 c.y.
Current Design Layout
Total Non‐Exempt
831 c.y.
Difference from Original Grading Plan to
Revised Grading Plan
102 cubic yards
Previously Proposed
Design Layout
185
PROPOSED SIDE‐YARD SETBACKS
59’9”
21’ Total Setback
from Residences
80’‐9”
6980 Dume Dr
(Dr. Roesler’s
Residence)
Subject Property
186
187
188
Neighborhood Character and 2nd Story Analysis
189
Surrounding Properties
Generally, new construction in the Point Dume area is trending larger than the original homes and often includes a second story…Neighboring properties located along Dume Drive are developed with a mix of one‐ and two‐story residential structures of similar size with mature landscaping, properties area mix of vintage homes construction in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s and more recent construction in 2013. The two‐story structures on neighboring properties share similar roof heights.
The proposed residence is designed to break up massing. The second‐story is articulated from the first‐story in a way to avoid a box appearance, the project meets the 2/3rds rule, and similar size two‐story homes are found adjacent to the subject parcel (6950 and 7002 Dume Drive).
Source: Finding 2 of Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report on February 1, 2021, Pg. 11 of 17 190
6950 Dume Drive 7002 Dume Drive 6980 Dume Drive (Dr. Roesler’s Residence) Subject Property Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
191
Dume Drive
Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
1‐story 2‐story 2‐story 1‐story 2‐story 2‐story 1‐story 1‐story 2‐story Subject Property 5 out of 9 properties (56%)
are 2‐Story
192
6980 Dume Drive
2nd Story: 2,318 sq. ft. (Source: GIS)
TDSF: 6,524 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
193
2nd Story: 3,569 sq. ft. (Source: GIS)
TDSF: 7,046 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
6950 Dume Drive
194
7002 Dume Drive
2nd Story: 3,559 sq. ft. (Source: GIS)
TDSF: 7,125 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
195
2nd Story: 2,282 sq. ft. (Source: GIS)
TDSF: 6,039 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
6949 Dume Drive
196
6969 Dume Drive
2nd Story: 2,488 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
TDSF: 8,940 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
197
29209 Bluewater Road
2nd Story: 2,421 sq. ft. (Source: GIS)
TDSF: 3,642 sq. ft. (Source: COM)
198
69306949 Dume Drive Dume Drive 6950 Dume Drive 6969 Dume Drive Building Permits for 2‐Story Residences within 500‐ft
7026 Dume Drive 29245 Bluewater 6925 Grasswood Ave 6938 DriveGrasswood Ave 6962 Grasswood Ave 6995 Grasswood Ave 7015 Grasswood Ave 199
Property Address 2nd Story sq ft (GIS) Height (Stories) 6968 Dume Drive(Subject Property) 2,363 26915 Dume Drive 1 6916 Dume Drive 1
6927 Dume Drive 16930 Dume Drive 2,317 26939 Dume Drive 16949 Dume Drive 2,282 26950 Dume Drive 3,569 26956 Dume Drive 1425 26959 Dume Drive 267 2 6969 Dume Drive 2,4886980 Dume Drive 2,318 27002 Dume Drive 3,559 27008 Dume Drive 17013 Dume Drive 17016 Dume Drive 1 7026 Dume Drive 1,782 27033 Dume Drive 483 27048 Dume Drive 129209 Bluewater Drive 2,421 2 29214 Bluewater Drive 1
29223 Bluewater Drive 1
29233 Bluewater Drive 1
29245 Bluewater Drive 1781 2
6917 Grasswood Ave 1
6925 Grasswood Ave 2,918 26935 Grasswood Ave 16938 Grasswood Ave 2,260 26943 Grasswood Ave 1 6950 Grasswood Ave 1
6962 Grasswood Ave 4,321 26972 Grasswood Ave 16995 Grasswood Ave 3,824 27002 Grasswood Ave 17005 Grasswood Ave 1 7015 Grasswood Ave 2,250 2
7022 Grasswood Ave 2,984 27036 Grasswood Ave 2,404 27037 Grasswood Ave 2,850 2 Surrounding Neighborhood ‐ 500’ Radius for Two‐Story Residences Allowed
2nd Story (2/3rds Ratio)
3,423 sf
Average
2nd Story properties
within 500
‐ft
2,478 sf
2nd Story for 6968 Dume Drive
2,363 sq ft Total 38 Properties Average 2,478 sq ft Average 50% 200
Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
Proposed Front Yard
Setback (112’)
201
THANK YOU
202
REBUTTAL
203
Project Plan Revisions from July 20th, 2020
Planning Commission Hearing
•Relocate the garage to face Dume Drive to
address privacy concerns and visual impacts
from neighbor.
•Elimination of the previously proposed dual
retaining walls “pre‐violation condition.”
204
Previously Proposed Design Layout
July 20th, 2020 Planning Commission
205
Previously Proposed Design Layout
July 20th, 2020 Planning Commission
Dual Retaining
Walls
206
Current Design Layout
September 20th, 2021 Planning Commission
207
Facing Northeast from 6968 Dume Drive (subject property) in 2021 208
PROPOSED SIDE‐YARD SETBACKS
59’9”
21’ Total Setback
from Residences
80’‐9”
6980 Dume Dr
(Dr. Roesler’s
Residence)
Subject Property
209
Elevation Contours
6980 Dume Dr
(Dr. Roesler’s
Residence)
Subject Property
228.25’
F.F.
220’
Elevation
210
Photos taken from 6980 Dume Drive (Neighbor)
211
Photos taken from 6980 Dume Drive (Neighbor)
212
Photos taken from 6980 Dume Drive (Neighbor)
213
the views depicted from these pictures are
mostly obstructed by existing, dense and mature trees in the direction of the proposed residence and protected views of impressive scenes are not expected to be obstructed by the portions of the proposed residence in excess of 18 feet in height.
Source: Planning Commission Staff Report, September 20th, 2021, Pp. 1‐2. 214
6950 Dume Drive 7002 Dume Drive 6980 Dume Drive (Dr. Roesler’s Residence) Subject Property Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
215
Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
1‐story 2‐story 2‐story 1‐story 2‐story 2‐story 1‐story 1‐story 2‐story Subject Property 5 out of 9 properties (56%)
are 2‐Story
216
Property Address 2nd Story sq ft (GIS) Height (Stories) 6968 Dume Drive(Subject Property) 2,363 26915 Dume Drive 1 6916 Dume Drive 1
6927 Dume Drive 16930 Dume Drive 2,317 26939 Dume Drive 16949 Dume Drive 2,282 26950 Dume Drive 3,569 26956 Dume Drive 1425 26959 Dume Drive 267 2 6969 Dume Drive 2,4886980 Dume Drive 2,318 27002 Dume Drive 3,559 27008 Dume Drive 17013 Dume Drive 17016 Dume Drive 1 7026 Dume Drive 1,782 27033 Dume Drive 483 27048 Dume Drive 129209 Bluewater Drive 2,421 2 29214 Bluewater Drive 1
29223 Bluewater Drive 1
29233 Bluewater Drive 1
29245 Bluewater Drive 1781 2
6917 Grasswood Ave 1
6925 Grasswood Ave 2,918 26935 Grasswood Ave 16938 Grasswood Ave 2,260 26943 Grasswood Ave 1 6950 Grasswood Ave 1
6962 Grasswood Ave 4,321 26972 Grasswood Ave 16995 Grasswood Ave 3,824 27002 Grasswood Ave 17005 Grasswood Ave 1 7015 Grasswood Ave 2,250 2
7022 Grasswood Ave 2,984 27036 Grasswood Ave 2,404 27037 Grasswood Ave 2,850 2 Surrounding Neighborhood ‐ 500’ Radius for Two‐Story Residences Allowed
2nd Story (2/3rds Ratio)
3,423 sf
Average
2nd Story properties
within 500
‐ft
2,478 sf
2nd Story for 6968 Dume Drive
2,363 sq ft Total 38 Properties Average 2,478 sq ft Average 50% 217
Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood on Dume Drive
Proposed Front Yard
Setback (112’)
218
6969 Dume Drive
219
CONCLUSIONS
• Project complies with all MMC and LCP Development Standards. • The (1) garage has been redesigned to face away from neighbor for privacy, the (2) dual retaining walls have been removed, and the (3) grading has been modified to assuage neighbor concerns.
• According to permitting records and GIS, the average
2nd story sq. ft. is 2,478
sq. ft. The
2nd story of the project is 2,363 sq. ft.
• 19 of the 38 properties (50%) within the 500
‐ft radius and 10 of the 19
properties (53%) in immediate area on Dume Drive are
2 ‐story.
220
THANK YOU
221
Facing Southeast from 6980 Dume Drive (neighbor’s property) in 2011 222
Facing Southeast from 6980 Dume Drive (neighbor’s property) in 2011 223
224
225
CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 21-68
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 NO. 17-088 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 2,257 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLESTORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,472 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 999 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, ONSITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMEN, AND
AFTER-THE-FACT RETAINING WALLS, GRADING, AND FRONT YARD GATES, INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 19-030 FOR CONSTRUCTION IN EXCESS OF 18 FEET IN HEIGHT, UP TO 28 FEET FOR A PITCHED ROOF, AND DEMOLITION PERMIT NO. 19-023 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ONSITE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 6968 DUME DRIVE (HIGHLANDS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC)
The Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. On September 13, 2017, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-088 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Burdge and Associates, on behalfof the property owners, Valley Executive Telecom Trust. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.
B. On April 30, 2019, staff deemed the project complete.
C. On June 14, 2019, a Code Enforcement action was taken on the property for a new electric front gate, block wall along the side property line, grading and drainage pipes being constructed without the benefit ofplanning approval and building permits. Code Violation (CV) No. 20-014 was added to the subject application.
D. On March 27, 2020, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Planning Department.
E. On May 28, 2020, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document story poles, site conditions, and surrounding area.
F. On May 29, 2020, an updated grant deed was submitted by the applicant for the new property owners, Highlands Investment Group, LLC.
G. On June 16, 2020, the applicant posted a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application on the subject property.
H. On June 25, 2020, a Notice ofPlanning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius ofthe subject property. 226
Resolution No 2 1-68
I. On July 20, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the item to a date uncertain at the applicant’s request.
J. On January 7, 2021, a Notice ofPlanning 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.
K. On February 1, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the item to the March 1, 2021 Planning Commission meeting at the applicant’s request.
L. On March 1, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the item to a date uncertain at the applicant’s request.
M. On August 26, 2021, a Notice ofPlanning 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.
N. On September 20, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staffreport, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.
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 found that this project is listed among the classes ofprojects 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 15301(l)(1) — Existing Facilities and 15303(a) and (e) New Constmction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none ofthe six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.
Based on substantial evidence contained within the record and pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 17-088 to allow for the demolition ofan existing 2,257 square foot, single-story single-family residence, construction ofa new 7,472 square foot, two-story single-family residence with a 999 square foot basement, swimming pool, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), associated development, and after-the-fact retaining walls, grading and front yard gates, including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 19-030 for construction in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 28 feet for a pitched roof, and Demolition Permit (DP) No. 19-023 for the demolition of the existing single family residence and onsite development located in the Rural Residential One-Acre (RR- 1) zoning district located at 6968 Dume Drive.
227
Resolution No 21-68
The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion ofthe proposed SPR and DP, 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 proposed project is located in the RR-1 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. A single-family residence and associated development are permitted uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, LACFD, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and WD29. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, with the inclusion of the requested SPR and DP.
2. The proposed project meets the development policies ofthe LCP and MMC, with the inclusion of the SPR and MM and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Therefore, the proposed project has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
B. Site Plan Review for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27.5) SPR No. 19-030 from the development standards contained in LIP Section 13.27 will allow construction ofa single-family residence over 18 feet in height at a maximum height of28 feet for a pitched roof.
1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and a detailed site investigation, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.
2. SPR No. 19-030 would allow for the construction ofa new two-story residence on a lot that is currently developed with a one-story residence constructed in the 1950s. Staff visited the project site on May 28, 2020, photo-documented the story poles and evaluated the project for conformance with applicable development standards. Staffrevisited the site on August 24, 2021, to confirm story poles. Neighboring properties located along Dume Drive are developed with a mix of one- and two-story residential structures of similar size with mature landscaping. As demonstrated with the story pole photographs, due to the location ofthe proposed development towards the center of the property, the portions of the proposed development over 18 feet in height will have limited visibility from Dume Drive. Furthermore, the adjacent neighbor located at 6980 Dume Drive requested staffto evaluate potential view impacts ofthe Santa Monica Mountains. Staff conducted a site visit and, based on the pictures taken, the portions ofthe residence in excess of 18 feet in height are not expected to block views of any impressive scenes ofthe Santa Monica mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines. Based on existing nearby development, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment and is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character. Therefore, the portions of the structures in excess of 18 feet are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character. 228
Resolution No 2 1-68
3. On May 28,2020, staff visited the subject parcel and, on August 24,2021, revisited to view the story poles and surrounding neighborhood. Based on these site visits, staff determined that the proposed residence will not be visible from scenic areas or scenic roads. The proposed residence is not expected to create obstructions or encroachments into public views and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6.
4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the LCP in that the project is located in an area that has been identified for residential use. The proposed project is also consistent with the City’s General Plan and LCP. The goals and policies of the General Plan intend to maintain rural residential character in this area, and all components of the project are consistent with these goals.
The proposed project is consistent with the LCP in that it conforms to the residential land use designation and all applicable development standards.
6. Based on the visual impact analysis (aerial photographs, story poles, and site visits), staff has determined that the proposed construction above 18-feet in height is not expected to obstruct visually impressive scenes ofthe Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17). Furthermore, staff conducted a couple of remote meetings with the adjacent neighbor (6980 Dume Drive) to discuss the project. The most recent inperson meeting took place, on August 24,2021, to discuss the project revisions and potential view impacts. The adjacent neighbor continues to express concerns with the location ofthe development, particularly potential impacts to his view of the Santa Monica Mountains. The concerns were provided to the project applicant. However, based on staff’s inspections and present site conditions, the portions of the residence in excess of 18 feet in height do not affect this neighbor’s views of impressive scenes.
C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability ofthe site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. 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.
2. The project, as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical staff and the City Public Works Department, does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or fire hazards due to the project design.
3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. These specialists and agency determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would result in less site disturbance. 229
Resolution No 2 1-68
5. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.
D. Demolition Permit Findings (MMC Chapter 17.70)
1. The proposed project includes the demolition ofthe existing single-family residence, attached garage, and abandonment of the existing OWTS. Conditions of approval, including the recycling of demolished materials, have been included to ensure that the proposed project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts.
2. This CDP application is being processed concurrently with DP No. 19-023, and approval ofthe demolition permit is subject to the approval of CDP No. 17-088.
SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.
Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 17-088, SPR No. 19-030, and DP No. 19-023, subject to the following conditions.
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemni& 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 ofany person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity ofany ofthe 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. Demolition ofthe existing 1,857 square foot, single-family residence; b. Demolition the existing 400 square foot, attached garage; c. Abandon the existing OWTS;
d. A new 7,472 square foot two-story single-family residence with attached three-car garage (6,672 sq. ft. habitable and 800 sq. ft. garage), plus a 999 square foot basement (not included in TDSF);
e. Two trellised patios totaling 400 square feet and 576 square feet, respectively (not included in TDSF);
f. Swimming pool and spa measuring 20 feet wide by 60 feet long; g. Associated pool and spa equipment (to be fUlly screened); h. In-ground gas fire pit;
i. Trash enclosure outside the required front yard;
j. Site fencing and gates;
k. New landscaping and hardscaping;
I. Grading;
m. Retaining walls to not exceed six feet in height; and n. Installation of new OWTS.
230
Resolution No 21-68
o. Discretionary Requests:
i. SPR No. 19-030 for construction in excess of 18 feet in height but to exceed 28 feet for a pitched roof; and
ii. DP No. 19-023 for the demolition of the existing single-family residence, attached garage and OWTS.
3. Except as specifically changed by conditions ofapproval, 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 July 28. 2021. 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 owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance ofConditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.
5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Conditions No. 6 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 and notarized Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit, major remodel policy and signed agreement (if applicable) and all Department Review Sheets attached to the agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet ofthe development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check, and the City of Malibu Public Works Department for an encroachment permit (as applicable).
7. The CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. 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 ofan appeal, the CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decisionmaking body or withdrawn by the appellant.
8. Any questions ofintent or interpretation ofany condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.
9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, WD29 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 231
Resolution No 21-68
Program. Revised pians 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 have been exhausted.
12. 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.
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 1 7.54.040(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 ofthe California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification ofthe coroner. Ifthe coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall noti& 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.
Lighting
15. 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. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.
16. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.
17. 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. 232
Resolution No 21-68
18. 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 ofthe shore is prohibited.
19. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.
20. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.
21. Three violations ofthe conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site.
Fencing/Walls/Screening
22. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination oftwo or more walls.
23. Any above-ground equipment shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A).
Site-Specific Conditions
24. No exterior lighting is proposed as part ofthis project; therefore, no new exterior lighting is permitted as part ofthis project.
25. The project as approved is near the maximum TDSF allowed for the subject parcel.
Converting the trellis covered roofs or any other changes that would increase TDSF over the maximum allowed shall not be permitted unless an appropriate application is submitted to the Planning Department and the Planning Director confirms that these changes to the project comply with applicable TDSF standards.
Demolition/Solid Waste
26. Prior to demolition activities, the applicant shall receive Planning Department approval for compliance with conditions of approval.
27. The applicant/property owner shall contract with a City approved hauler to facilitate the recycling ofall recoverable/recyclable material. Recoverable material shall include but shall not be limited to: asphalt, dirt and earthen material, lumber, concrete, glass, metals, and drywall.
28. Prior to the issuance ofa 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.
29. Upon plan check approval ofdemolition plans, the applicant shall secure a demolition permit from the City. The applicant shall comply with all conditions related to demolition imposed 233
Resolution No 2 1-68
by the Building Official.
30. No demolition permit shall be issued until building permits are approved for issuance.
Demolition ofthe existing structure and initiation ofreconstruction must take place within a six-month period. Dust control measures must be in place ifconstruction does not commence within 30 days.
31. The project developer shall utilize licensed subcontractors and ensure that all asbestoscontaining materials and lead-based paints encountered during demolition activities are removed, transported, and disposed of in full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations.
32. My building or demolition permits issued for work commenced or completed without the benefit of required permits are subject to appropriate Investigation Fees as required in the Building Code.
33. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.
Construction I Framing
34. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy ofthe Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.
35. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to plan check submittal.
36. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. 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.
37. 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.
38. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount ofequipment 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 necessaiy; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.
39. 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 (BMP5) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
234
Resolution No 2 1-68
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.
40. 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 ofTransportation.
Color and Materials
41. Every residence shall have an exterior siding ofbrick, wood, stucco, metal, concrete or other similar material, except that reflective, glossy, polished and/or roll-formed type metal siding is prohibited.
Biology/Landscaping
42. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP 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, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.
43. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
44. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner/applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.
45. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same flmction as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of42 inches. Three violations ofthis condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.
46. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.
47. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). 235
Resolution No 21-68
48. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.
49. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.
50. My site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results ofnesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.
51. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.
52. 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 ofa structure with limited application areas. My 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
53. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the con~mencement of any work within the public right-of-way. The driveway shall be constructed ofeither six inches of concrete over four inches ofaggregate base, or four inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.
54. Several existing private improvements are located within the public right-of-way, such as (but not limited to) landscaping, railroad ties, and fencing. These improvements are required to be removed as part of this project and must be shown on the plans. The applicant / property owner shall place notes on the development plans for the removal of existing encroachments within the public right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval ofthe grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the removal of the private improvements within the public right-of-way.
55. 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 236
Resolution No 2 1-68
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.
56. 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.
57. A grading and drainage pian 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 ofland 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 ofgrading, areas disturbed for the installation ofthe 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 ofgrading shall be included within the area delineated; e. Ifthe property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identil5’ing the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing ofthese 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.
h. Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe grading permit.
58. A digital drawing (Aut0CAD) ofthe project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet ofthe 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.
59. 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.
60. 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 237
Resolution No 21-68
part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. 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 stormwater 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.
61. 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:
Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Water Conservation Practices Non-Storm Water Management 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 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.
62. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe 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 ofthe pre-development and post-development drainage ofthe site. The SWMP shall identil~’ the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design ofthe 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. 238
Resolution No 21-68
63. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe 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 QQMP shall meet all the requirements ofthe City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (M54) 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 ofthe proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. 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
g. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time ofsubmittal for review ofthe WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval ofthe 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 veri~’ the installation ofthe BMP’s, make any revisions to the 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.
64. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
Geology
65. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City Geologist 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 staff prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
66. Final plans approved by the City Geologist 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. 239
Resolution No 21-68
Swimming Pool / Spa
67. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pooi and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).
68. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section
3.5.3(A).
69. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall.
70. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only ifthe following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach in to the M54 or to the ASBS (including tributaries).
71. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
72. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section l3.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration andlor pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
Environmental Health
73. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe scale ofthe 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).
74. A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). 240
Resolution No 21-68
75. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms offlow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even ifthe design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description ofproposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.
State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package’ systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day.
Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:
For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.
76. Final plans shall clearly show the locations of all existing OWTS components (serving pre existing development) to be abandoned and provide procedures for the OWTS’ proper abandonment in conformance with the MMC.
77. The following note shall be added to the plan drawings included with the OWTS final design: “Prior to commencing work to abandon, remove, or replace the existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) components, an ~OWTS Abandonment Permit’ shall be obtained from the City of Malibu. All work performed in the OWTS abandonment, removal or replacement area shall be performed in strict accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental and occupational safety and health regulatory requirements. The obtainment of any such required permits or approvals for this scope of 241
Resolution No 21-68
work shall be the responsibility ofthe applicant and their agents.”
78. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage pians shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
79. Proofof ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
80. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider ofthe proposed OWTS.
81. A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Please note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.
82. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder ofthe fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
83. Project geologist/geotechnical consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
84. City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
85. Planning department final approval of OWTS plans shall be obtained.
86. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit.
Prior to Occupancy
87. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.
88. 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 Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.
242
Resolution No 21-68
89. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning Department conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
90. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.
91. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part ofthe approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Fixed Conditions
92. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
93. Violation ofany ofthe conditions ofthis approval may be cause for revocation ofthis permit and termination of all rights granted there under.
Deed Restrictions
94. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemni& 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 ofthe 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 Planning Department staff prior to final Planning Department approval.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certi& the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20hl~ day of September 2021. ission Chair
ATTEST:
PATRICIA SALAZ~” , Recording Secretary
—-.-“I ‘JENNINt’,P~
243
Resolution No 2 1-68
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.
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO.21-68 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 20th day ofSeptember 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Smith, Weil, Jennings
NOES: 2 Commissioner: Hill
ABSTAIN: 1 Commissioner: Mazza
ABSENT: 0
PATRICIA SALA~AR, Recording Secretary
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
WESTERN SYCAMORE TREE
ARBORIST REPORT
Submitted To:
Highlands Investment Group LLC
9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000w
Beverly Hills, Ca 90212-3413
Submitted By:
Lance Walker
ISA Arborist #WE-12296A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
ASCA Consulting Academy Graduated
Tree Walkers LLC
251
Table of Contents
Summary ...........................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Background .......................................................................................................1 Assignment ....................................................................................................... 2 Limits of the Assignment ...................................................................................2 Purpose and Use of Report ................................................................................2 Observation .......................................................................................................2 Site Visit .............................................................................................................2 Site Location and Conditions .............................................................................2 Site Tree Observations .......................................................................................3 Tree Condition....................................................................................................4 Analysis and Testing...........................................................................................4 Discussion...........................................................................................................4 Tree Trunk and Roots.........................................................................................4 Main Tree Leaders and Stems............................................................................5 Tree Canopy .......................................................................................................5 Tree Grade..........................................................................................................6 City of Malibu Protection Ordinances ................................................................6 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................7 Recommendations .............................................................................................8 Glossary ..............................................................................................................9 Bibliography .....................................................................................................10 Assumptions & Limitations ..............................................................................11 Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................12 Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................13 Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................14 Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................15 Appendix 5 .......................................................................................................16 Appendix 6 .......................................................................................................17 Appendix 7 .......................................................................................................18 Appendix 8 .......................................................................................................19 252
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 1
SUMMARY
I was contacted by a member of the Schmitz & Associates Inc. on November 7th, 2022, concerning a Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) tree located on a property at 6968 Dume Drive in Malibu.
A site visit was scheduled for November 10th, 2022, and a second visit December 14th, 2022.
After the site visits, I was asked to provide a written arborist report to the Highlands Investment Group with an independent objective opinion regarding the Western Sycamore tree at 6980 Dime Drive.
The scope of work agreed upon was to provide tree species name, size, and health of tree. I was also asked to document any observable pruning cuts and estimated timeline of when the tree was trimmed.
After evaluating the tree, I determined that it is a Western Sycamore. The tree stands at 50-60 feet in height with a canopy spread of 30 feet. The trunk diameter is estimated at 15 inches at 4 ½ feet from ground level. This tree is classified as protected under the City of Malibu Protection Ordinance.
An 8-inch to 10-inch lateral limb was removed from the tree and a 5-inch diameter limb.
Looking at the response growth around the cut areas, I estimated that the tree was cut between September to December of 2021. The type of pruning style that was applied was a vista prune to create a view to the northern mountain range.
The tree appeared to have good health but should be monitored over the next two years.
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Schmitz & Associates Inc. contacted me on November 7th, 2022, concerning a Western Sycamore tree located on their client’s neighboring property.
The Schmitz and Associates Inc.(S&A) put me in contact with Highlands Investment Group (HIG) property manager to set up a site walk. On November 10th, 2022, a site walk was scheduled from 2:30pm to 3:30pm to assess the tree with a Highlands Investment Group property manager.
The meeting location was 6968 Dume Drive, Malibu Ca 90265. All the observations were carried out on the Highlands Investment Group property. The Western Sycamore tree in questions was located at 6980 Dume Drive, Malibu Ca 90265. After discussing the scope of work, a second meeting was scheduled to take measurements for a tree report. The second site visit was scheduled for December 14th, 2022, at 1:30pm to 2:30pm. 253
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 2
After reviewing the situation and discussing my terms of employment, I agreed to create a tree report to reflect the condition of the Western Sycamore tree at 6980 Dume Drive, Malibu Ca 90265.
ASSIGNMENT
After the December 14th property walk, the Schmitz & Associates and Highlands Investment Group requested the following services:
• Provide a formal written arborist report to the Highlands Investment Group with an independent objective opinion regarding the Western Sycamore tree at 6980 Dume Drive.
• Provide tree species name, size, and condition of tree. • Provide information on observable pruning cuts and estimated timeline of when the tree was trimmed.
LIMITS OF THE ASSIGNMENT
A tree evaluation was performed where a visual ground inspection of the tree’s crown, trunk, and site conditions were evaluated. Inspection was limited to the visual parts of the tree that could be observed from the north side of the tree. The tree’s root flare and above ground surface roots could not be evaluated. Permission of the current property owner at 6980 Dume Drive must be obtained before this work can be undertaken and the evaluation completed.
No aerial inspection was performed and there were no soil samples taken for laboratory testing. My inspection was limited to ground-based observations on the 6968 Dume Drive property and of exposed parts of the subject tree only.
PURPOSE AND USE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to assess the subject tree’s health and structural conditions as well as identify past pruning cuts.
This report is intended to be used by Highlands Investment Group. Upon submission, this report will become the property of the Highlands Investment Group and its use will be at their discretion.
OBSERVATIONS
SITE VISIT
There we two scheduled site visits. The initial consultation visit was November 10th, 2022, from 2:30pm to 3:30pm. The second site visit was scheduled to take measurements December 14th, 2022, at 1:30pm to 2:30pm.
SITE LOCATION AND CONDITIONS
The Western Sycamore tree is growing in a water drainage zone that runs West to East through the neighbor’s property. The Western Sycamore tree is part of a grouping of 5 Western 254
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 3
Sycamore trees inside the drainage riparian landscape. The grouping of trees is spaced out west to east along the riparian zone. The subject tree is the farthest eastern growing tree in the grouping.
The tree is growing in the center of the parcel and to the Northeast side of the home. This tree grows 36 feet south from the shared property lined cinderblock wall. It is growing 15 to 20 feet below grade from Highlands Investment Groups property. The tree is in a drainage riparian style landscape where it is protected from the prevailing Santa Ana and onshore coastal winds.
Weather conditions at the time of inspection were fair with rolling cloud cover. This area can see seasonal Santa Ana winds at 50mph. Malibu temperatures can average from 50-75 degrees and have an annual rainfall of 10-15 inches per year.
Other trees and plants seen on property were Eucalyptus, Peruvian Pepper, Olive, and a variety of ground cover and hedges.
WESTERN SYCAMORE, Platanus racemose
The Western Sycamore tree is a California native riparian tree that can tolerate extreme heat and wind. This tree can reach heights of 80 feet with a canopy width 20 to 50 feet wide. It is a deciduous tree with a rounded canopy that has a growth rate of 24 to 36 inches per year. The leaf shape is palmately lobed with a light green color. Trunk bark sheds seasonally and has a striking cream, blue grey or light green coloring.
SITE TREE OBSERVATIONS
The tree is a Western Sycamore, Platanus racemosa. The tree stands at 50-60 feet in height with a canopy spread of 30 feet. The trunk diameter is estimated at 15 inches at 4 ½ feet from ground level. The estimated age of the tree would be 25 (+/-5) years.
The tree’s trunk has one main leader growing vertically with no apparent lean. At 10 feet in height, the first lateral stem on the trunk is growing to the southeast. The branch is around 5- inch diameter width and extends away from the trunk by 10 feet.
At 20 feet in height, a large lateral branch was removed on the west side of the tree. The removed branch appears to have been 8 to 10 inches in diameter. There is evidence of CODIT wound closure on the cut. The wound has a clean cut and was cut with a chainsaw. New epicormic sprouts have sprouted around the wound of the removed lateral branch. The new shoots growing around the wound appear to be 36 inches to 50 inches in length. 6 inches above the wound of the large lateral branch, is a 5-inch diameter limb that is 3 feet in length. This branch appears to have been reduced around the same time as the lower 8 to 10- inch diameter limb. New growth shoots have sprouted around the wound of the reduced 3-foot lengthened branch.
The top third of the tree’s canopy is balanced and rounded. Branches radiate up and around the trunk in a balanced pattern. The branches estimated length away from the trunk is 10 to 15 feet. No codominant stems or included bark on branch unions.
No observations were made about the base of the trunk, buttress roots, or surface roots because they could not be seen from the inspection areas. 255
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 4
TREE CONDITION
The tree is in good condition and has signs of healthy vigor during the time of inspection. Trunk bark is shedding with healthy colored new wood. No insect bore holes on the tree. The branch attachments appear to have strong unions with no signs of codominant leaders or included bark. The tree has signs of late season leaf growth as well as normal seasonal coloring on the leaves. The apical or terminal buds on the branches appear to have formed for next season's growth. There are signs of compartmentalization of decay in tree (CODIT) around the wound areas with living tissue on the large 8-inch to 10-inch lateral limb. There were no bird or animal nests seen in the tree. No hollows in the bark or branches. There were no insects seen on tree, mistletoe, cankers or fungus. No broken hanging limbs or deadwood observed in canopy.
ANALYSIS AND TESTING
A visual inspection at ground level was performed to assess the health and vigor of trunk, branch attachments, canopy dimensions, and wound closer on damaged areas. The tree trunk diameter was measured at 4 ½ feet. A Laser Rangefinder TruPulse 360R was used to measure the trunk and canopy dimensions. The Sycamore tree was GPS using the ESRI ArcGIS mobile app and the Arrow 100 IOS positioning system.
Photos of the tree were from an iPhone 12 with 0.5 to 2x Zoom. A leaf sample was examined that fell onto the 6968 Dume Drive property to match with photos. No tissue samples were taken, and no lab testing was performed. Using the rating system of overall health and vigor, a letter grade of “B” was assigned to the tree.
DISCUSSION
IDENTIFYING TREE SPECIES
To determine the species of the Sycamore, the leaves, and bark were used. There are 4 distinct types of Sycamore trees that are growing in the wild and urban forests of Southern California.
There is the American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Mexican Sycamore (Platanus mexicana), Arizona Sycamore (Platanus wrightii), and Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
When comparing the bark color and texture with the leaf shape, the subject tree at 6980 Dume Drive is a Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
TREE TRUNK AND ROOTS
I was only granted access to make my observations from the Highlands Investment Group property. Due to the ground cover and location of the tree, I was unable to document any information pertaining to the tree’s lower trunk leader and root system. 256
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 5
MAIN TREE LEADERS AND STEMS
The main tree leader is growing vertically with no signs of lean. This Sycamore tree, is in a period of its life, where it is growing vertically as fast as it can to establish its canopy within the urban forest. Young trees, like this Sycamore, will put most of their energy into growing vertically. This tree is located on a lower grade than other trees on the property, so its light accessibility is limited.
The branch that was cut, was the tree’s reaction to phototropism and accessible light on the property. This tree does not get afternoon or evening sun because of the home and other trees on the property. The morning to noon sunlight is what the tree captures to make sugars from the sun. The cut branch was the largest lateral branch on the tree from my observation and its removal may have a negative effect on the tree’s health over time.
The homeowner elected a vista pruning of the canopy to enhance the view of the mountains.
This style of pruning technique usually jeopardizes the health, shape, and stability of the tree.
This type of pruning should not be applied to every tree because of the side effects in the response growth. This type of pruning cut would go against the ANSI 300 Pruning Standards that is applied within the tree service industry.
The 8-inch to 10-inch cut wound on the tree was not from natural disaster or limb failure but from a chainsaw cut. In the center of the wound, there is a straight line that travels horizontally form north to south. The tree surgeon who performed the cut first made an undercut almost halfway through the branch. The second cut was made downward outside the branch bark ridge union on the tree. This trimming style leaves a clean cut where the tree can compartmentalize the wound. If this limb were damaged by a natural disaster or tree failure, the wound would be jagged and there would be a tear traveling down the main trunk’s bark.
After the tree loses a large limb that it has depended on, it will send out new growth shoots to regenerate what was lost. Multiple limbs will be grown in the hopes that one will survive and replace what was lost. These sprouts have weak branch unions and should be thinned out as they start to grow.
The response growth of the new spouts around the wound can tell use the estimated time frame of the tree’s pruning. These sprouts are around 30 to 50 inches in length. With the growth rate of this tree around 24 to 34 inches per year, I would estimate that this tree was trimmed around September of 2021 to January of 2022.
TREE CANOPY
The Sycamore tree was observed during fall when the leaves were starting to fall. The leaves that were still on the tree were light green with natural deciduous foliage of yellow and brown.
There was evidence of some late summer to early fall seasonal growth and sprouting from a heat wave that happened 1 month prior to inspection.
257
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 6
The lateral branches traveling up the tree have a natural radial growth pattern growing off the main trunk. Branches at the top of the canopy have a rounded shape that is quite common for sycamores.
TREE GRADE
Due to the unbalanced canopy of the tree, a “B” grade would be assessed to the health of this Western Sycamore tree. The trees vigor is normal for the species. No severe damage due to diseases of pests. Any twig dieback, defoliation, or discoloration on the tree is minor. It has a well-developed structure, and the defects are minor and can be corrected. Its form has minor asymmetries from species norm. The tree is mostly consistent with the intended use and its function and aesthetics are not compromised. “B” rated trees fall between 61% to 80% vigor on the rating scale.
CITY OF MALIBU PROTECTION ORDINANCES
The City of Malibu has a long-term maintenance and monitoring program designed to assure long-term protection and health of all native trees. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007) The protected trees under the City of Malibu are native Oak, Walnut, Sycamore, Alder and Toyon require a permit for shaping, thinning, heading, topping and tree removal. All work on these trees must be under the daily supervision of an arborist.
The purpose of the Native Tree Protection Chapter is to:
1) Recognize the importance of native Oak, Walnut, Sycamore, Alder and Toyon trees in preventing the erosion of hillsides and stream banks, moderating water temperatures in streams through shading, contributing nutrients to streams, supporting a wide variety of wildlife species through the provision of food, nesting, and roosting cover, and contributing to the scenic quality of the community.
2) To provide for the protection and preservation of these native trees. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007) The requirements of the City of Malibu Native Tree Protection ordinance apply to those areas containing one or more native oak (Quercus species), California Walnut (Juglans californica), Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), or Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) tree, that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007) The Western Sycamore tree that was trimmed is a protected tree under the City of Malibu Native Tree Protection Ordinance. Permits should have been filed before trimming and the work should have been under the supervision of a certified ISA Arborist. 258
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 7
CONCLUSION
The City of Malibu has rules and regulations for protecting native trees. These rules are designed to keep the trees healthy and thriving. The native trees support a wide variety of wildlife species through the provision of food, nesting, and roosting cover, and contributing to the scenic quality of the community. They also prevent the erosion of hillsides and stream banks, moderating water temperatures in streams through shading, and contributing nutrients to streams.
The subject Western Sycamore tree was pruned using a vista pruning technique. This type of pruning can be used on hedges or on trees that are not protected. It is my professional opinion that this was not permitted by the City of Malibu or supervised by an ISA Arborist. This pruning style took out a large lateral branch that the tree was using for photosynthesis. It left the tree’s canopy lopsided and could be detrimental to the tree's health over time.
It is recommended that this tree should be monitored over the next 2 years for signs of stress and decreased vigor. No corrective trimming can be administered to this tree to fix the past pruning cuts and the tree should be allowed to grow so it can mend. 259
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on my preceding, I recommend the following course of action regarding the Western Sycamore tree on the property:
• No Pruning should be done on the tree for 2-3 years.
• Monitor tree every 6 months and inspect compartmentalization around cut wound area. • Allow leaf litter to accumulate around canopy drip line of tree to strengthen soil biosphere form decomposition of leaves and organic matter.
260
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 9
GLOSSARY
ANSI 300 Pruning Standards: Standards represent the industry criteria for performing tree care operations.
Buttress Root: Roots at the trunk base that help support the tree and equalize mechanical stress.
Codominant Stems: When a tree has more than one main trunk or limb that is similar in diameter.
Compartmentalization of Decay in Tree (CODIT): When a tree is wounded, cells undergo changes to form "walls" around the wound, slowing or preventing the spread of disease and decay to the rest of the tree.
Crown: Refers to the total of an individual plant's aboveground parts, including stems, leaves, and reproductive structures.
Deadwood: Decayed or diseased wood located within the tree crown.
Deciduous Foliage: A tree, shrub, or other plant that completely loses its foliage for part of the year.
Diameter: The length of a straight line through the center of a circle.
Drip line: Imaginary line defined by the branch spread of a single plant or group of plants.
Epicormic Sprouts: The sprouts most often occur around wounds caused by improper pruning or other injury.
Included Bark: Bark that becomes embedded in a crotch (union) between branch and trunk or between codominant stems, causing a weak structure.
ISA Arborist: A credential identifies professional arborists who have a minimum of three years' full-time experience working in the professional tree care industry and who have passed an examination covering facets of arboriculture.
Leader: Is the dominant trunk of a tree
Palmately Lobed: Having lobes radiating from a central point, multilateral having many parts or sides.
Phototropism: The orientation of a plant or other organism in response to light.
Response Growth: Wood that is created by the tree after pruning cuts or around damaged areas promoting compartmentalization and wound closure.
Terminal Buds: Bud at the tip of a twig or shoot.
Root Flare: Is the area at the base of a tree where the trunk transitions from trunk and bark tissues into root system tissues.
Vigor: A tree's physical strength and assessment of health.
Vista Pruning: Pruning to enhance a specific view.
261
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SelecTree. UFEI. "Platanus racemosa Tree Record." 1995-2023. Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo.
262
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 11
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
No guarantee is made, expressed or implied, that complications or deficiencies of the trees or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The Consultant shall not be responsible for damage or injuries caused by any tree defects and assumes no responsibility for the amendment of defects or tree-related problems.
The Consulting Arborist has no past, present or future interest in the removal or keeping of any tree.
Opinions contained herein are the independent and objective judgments of the consultant relating to circumstances and observations made on the subject site.
The recommendations enclosed in this report are the opinions of the Consulting Arborist at the time of inspection. These judgements are based on the knowledge, experience, and education of the Consultant. The field assessment was a visual, grade level tree evaluation.
The Consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information. This Arborist report may not be reproduced without the express permission of the Consulting Arborist and the client to whom the report was issued.
The Consulting Arborist shall not be required to give testimony, perform site monitoring, provide further documentation, be deposed, or to attend any meeting without subsequent contractual arrangements for this additional employment, including payment of additional fees to such services as described by the Consultant.
The owner of the trees may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Consultant or pursue additional counsel to determine if a tree meets the owner's risk reduction standards. Any change or alteration to this report invalidates the entire report. The information in this report was purchased by the client and may not be printed, emailed, or passed along to a third party without written consent from Tree Walkers LLC.
Should you have any follow up questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me at Respectfully submitted,
Lance Walker
Managing Partner/Arborist
Tree Walkers LLC
Lic #991694 C-27, C-61/D-49
ISA Arborist #WE-12296A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
America Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Academy Graduate 818-919-4495 c.
TheTreeWalkers.com
263
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 12
APPENDIX 1: SITE MAP
264
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 13
APPENDIX 2: SUBJECT WESTERN SYCAMORE TREE
265
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 14
APPENDIX 3: SYCAMORE SPECIES COMMON TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA American Sycamore, Platanus occidentalis
(Image from calpoly.edu)
Mexican Sycamore, Platanus Mexicana
(Image from calpoly.edu)
Arizona Sycamore, Platanus wrightii
(Image from calpoly.edu)
266
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 15
APPENDIX 4: WESTERN SYCAMORE, Platanus racemosa
(Image from calpoly.edu)
Below images taken November 2022 at 6968 Dume Drive Malibu Ca
267
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 16
APPENDIX 5: SYCAMORE CANOPY BEFORE VISTA PRUNE
• Photo taken facing north from 6980 Dume Drive, dated 8/24/2021 • PHOTO SOURCE:
City of Malibu Supplemental Staff Report for CDP 17-088 dated September 16, 2021 (Provided to Tree Walkers LLC by Schmitz & Associates, Inc.). 268
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 17
APPENDIX 6: VISTA PRUNING
269
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 18
APPENDIX 7: RESPONSE GROWTH AFTER CUTS
270
January 5, 2023 Tree Walkers LLC
Western Sycamore Report 19
APPENDIX 8: REMOVED LATERAL LIMB WOUND
271
1 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
January 15th, 2023
Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Adrian Fernandez
RE: Applicant’s Response to Neighbor’s Appeal of CDP 17-008 (6968 Dume Drive) Director Mollica,
I write to you regarding our Client’s Project (CDP 17-008) located at 6968 Dume Drive and the appeal that was filed by the next-door neighbor, Dr. John Roesler (“Appellant”) at 6980 Dume Drive. CDP 17-008 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 20th, 2021. During this hearing, the Commission approved the project and made the finding that our client’s project would not have any impact on the appellant’s private views. This finding could be made because there was a large Western Sycamore Tree on the neighbor’s property which blocked all views across our client’s property. (See Exhibit A Supplemental Staff Report, dated September 16, 2021, Attached with relevant Photos).
You will see photos in the supplemental staff report that show that the sycamore tree completely blocked all mountain views (and all views period) across our client’s property. You will also see correspondence from the Appellant1 admitting on the record that it was his own protected Sycamore Tree which was primarily responsible for blocking his view. The Appellant further admits in email correspondence to Associate Planner, Didier Murillo and Planning Staff, that he had made efforts to obtain permits to remove the Sycamore tree or portions thereof to create a view for himself across our client’s land and he had been advised by arborists that this was “Impossible.” This being the case because the Local Coastal Program (LCP) would NOT ALLOW him to damage or destroy the tree to improve his views. Having Concluded that there was no view to protect, the Commission approved our clients project with findings of no view impacts.
1 Appellant’s correspondence is located at the end of Supplemental Staff report (Exhibit A). 272
2 Following the approval, the appellant filed an appeal asserting that his primary view of the Santa Monica Mountains was being impeded (See Exhibit B Appeal). Shortly after filing the Appeal, the Appellant, without a Coastal Development Permit, removed two large main limbs from the protected tree. One limb was 8 to 10” in diameter and the other was approximately 5” in diameter2.
View Looking North (before Prune) Source: Sup. Staff Report PVD photo taken December 15, 2021 (After Pruning)
2 See Attachment C, Tree Walkers, LLC Arborist Report Dated January 5, 2023 accounting for this vista pruning. 273
3 He did this shorty after having been warned by Associate Planner Didier Murillo that a code violation would be opened if he pruned the Sycamore Tree3. Notwithstanding this notice, Dr. Roesler proceeded to illegally prune his Sycamore Tree to create a view across our client’s property.
Shortly after engaging in this code violation, the Neighbor filed a Primary View Determination (PVD 21- 017 – EXHBIT D) on December 15th, 2021, seeking to enforce “rights” that he would not have had any potential claim to [EVER] had he not violated the City’s Native Tree Protection Ordinance. Shortly thereafter, a code violation was opened for the unlawful pruning of the tree and that violation persists unabated.
Fast Forward over a year and we still do not have a hearing date to move forward with the appeal and Ast. Director Fernandez is advising us that staff will be recommending approval of the appeal and denial of our client’s project based upon private view impacts to a view corridor that did not exist and would not have existed until the Appellant took matters into his own hands and violated the law4.
Staff Recommendation on Appeal
Richard, the only thing that has changed since our client’s project was approved 1.4 years ago, is that the neighbor got himself into trouble. Dr. Roesler has blatantly violated the LCP by pruning and damaging the protected Sycamore Tree. There is an open code violation for this and to my knowledge, neither Dr.
Roesler nor the City have taken any meaningful action to remedy the violation or mitigate the damage he has done to date. I will tell you, as you already know, that damage to, or removal of a protected tree, shall be mitigated at a 10:1 ratio with priority placed upon onsite restoration5. What kind of view does the Appellant expect to have after he has completed an LCP compliant restoration plan with 10 Trees along that common property line?
As it stands staff is preparing to reward the appellant and vest him with view rights that never could have even been contemplated but for the appellant's purposeful violation of the law. There is an old legal maxim that is apropos, “He how seeks equity, must do equity.” Dr. Roesler has certainly not done equity.
Rather, he has ignored warnings from City staff not to prune the tree and knowingly violated the LCP and the Coastal Act.
The appellant has not acted lawfully and has asserted rights that could not exist but for violation of the law. The Applicant, however, has followed the law and shown remarkable patience and fortitude.
We have consulted with Tree Walkers, LLC, a licensed arborist (Lance Walker) to obtain a professional assessment of the unlawful pruning that occurred on the appellant’s property. Mr. Walker performed site visit to the applicant’s property and viewed the damaged tree located on Dr. Roesler’s property. Mr.
Walker took measurements of the tree and the pruned limbs using laser measurement and visual 3 See August 30, 2021 Email correspondence from Associate Planner Didier Murillo to Appellant (Attachment #2 to Supplemental Staff Report, dated September 16, 2021.)
4 This constitutes a violation of the City’s LIP Section 5.4 (A), which states the following: New development shall be sited and designed to preserve oak, walnut, sycamore, alder, and toyon, as identified by Section 5.2 of the Malibu LIP above, to the maximum extent feasible.
5 LIP 5.5.1(B)
274
4 observation and chronicled his findings in his report (Attachment C). The statements in Mr. Walker’s report substantiate the comments in this letter.
Notwithstanding the unlawful manner in which the view was procured, the view itself cannot be found to constitute a “visually impressive scene” of the Santa Monica Mountains6. The code doesn’t state that mere “scenes” of the mountains are protected it qualifies it with the language “Visually impressive”. So, in order to qualify as a Protected primary view, the view of the mountains [above 18’ as per code] must be visually impressive. As the photos in the PVD show, there is what appears to be a “Sliver” of a mountain view sited above the 18’ line. Any reasonable person would not find that such a view is “Visually impressive.”
We respectfully request that the City recommend denial of Dr. Roesler’s appeal provided that the appellant does not have a protected private view. We would ask that the City clarify for the record that a view obtained by violating the law cannot be cloaked in the protections afforded by the same law that was violated. Despite being inconsistent with the LCP, it is inconsistent with common sense and good public policy to reward the actions of those who violate the law.
Sincerely,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
6 MMC 17.40.040(A)(17) defines a protected primary view as follows: “Primary view” means visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines shall be protected.
275
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MALIBU
CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, March 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the project identified below. This meeting will be held via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 and pursuant to AB 361 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s Safer at Home Order. All votes taken during this teleconference meeting will be by roll call vote, and the vote will be publicly reported.
How to View the Meeting: No physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment will be provided. Please view the meeting, which will be live streamed at https://malibucity.org/video and https://malibucity.org/VirtualMeeting.
How to Participate Before the Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence to [email protected] before the meeting begins.
How to Participate During the Meeting: Members of the public wishing to speak or defer time to another speaker during the meeting must participate through the Zoom application and must be present in the Zoom conference to be recognized. The City requests that you sign up to speak before the item you would like to speak on has been called by the Mayor. For those wishing to defer time, you are not required to sign up to speak. At the start of public comment for the item, the Mayor shall ask members of the public wishing to defer time to raise their hands in the Zoom meeting using the reactions button. Each person will be called to verify their presence in the Zoom meeting and their intent to donate time.
Please visit https://malibucity.org/VirtualMeeting and follow the directions for signing up to speak and downloading the Zoom application.
APPEAL NO. 21-019 – An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-68 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 17-088 for the demolition of an existing 2,257 square foot, single-story single-family residence and construction of a new 7,472 square foot, two-story single-family residence with a 999 square foot basement, swimming pool, onsite wastewater treatment system, associated development, and after-the-fact retaining walls, grading, and front yard gates, including Site Plan Review No. 19-030 for construction in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 28 feet for a pitched roof, and Demolition Permit No. 19-023 for the demolition of the existing single-family residence and onsite development Location: 6968 Dume Drive
APN: 4466-015-015
Zoning: Rural Residential-One Acre (RR-1)
Applicant: Burdge and Associates
Appellant: John Roesler
Owners: Highlands Investment Group LLC
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(1), and 15303(a) and (e)
Application Filed: September 13, 2017
Appeal Filed: September 30, 2021
Case Planner: Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director (310) 456-2489, extension 482
[email protected] EXHIBIT j
276
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission previously analyzed the proposed project and found that it 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 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(1)(1) - Existing Facilities and 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The Planning Commission further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.
Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Publish Date: February 16, 2023
277
Agenda Item # 4.B.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director/Building Official Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: February 22, 2023 Meeting date: March 13, 2023 Subject: Adoption of Ordinance No. 504 - Los Angeles County Fire Code RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) After the City Attorney reads the title of the ordinance, introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 504, adopting by reference Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code, which incorporates the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, as amended; adopting local amendments to said code; ratifying the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County’s Building Standards contained in Title 32, as amended; and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2) Direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing for the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 504 for the April 10, 2023 City Council Regular meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
WORK PLAN: This item was included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal year 2022- 2023 and is part of normal staff operations.
DISCUSSION: The State adopts the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), every three (3) years. The CBSC consists of 12 parts in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which, taken together, establish the building standards for structural, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems throughout the state. Local jurisdictions may adopt amendments to the state building standards subject to specified conditions, but such local amendments must be specific to each edition of the CBSC. Malibu, along with several neighboring cities, traditionally adopts the state codes as amended by Los Angeles County to provide the public with efficient and locally applicable regional building standards.
Accordingly, on January 9, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 503, adopting various titles of the Los Angeles County Code that incorporate the 2022 CBSC, as amended for the Los Angeles basin. At that time, the Board of Supervisors had not yet City Council Meeting
03-13-23
Item
4.B.
Agenda Item # 4.B.
adopted regional amendments to the state building standards relating to fire protection and safety.
Effective January 31, 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted Title 32 (Fire Code) of the Los Angeles County Code, which incorporates the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code with local modifications. The Board of Supervisors serves as the governing body of the Consolidated Fire Prevention District of Los Angeles County (District) and also adopted Title 32 in that capacity. Pursuant to section 13869.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the District may, and does, adopt building standards relating to fire safety that are more stringent than the standards adopted by the State.
The District’s ordinance must be ratified by each jurisdiction in which the ordinance will apply, and any modification or denial of the District’s ordinance must include a written statement describing the reasons for the modification or denial. Local modifications to substantive building standards must also be more stringent than the requirements of the State Fire Code and reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
As a party to the District, Malibu regularly adopts the County Fire Code (Title 32) with an administrative amendment pertaining to local penalties for code violations. This ratification cycle, the City will also adopt a local amendment pertaining to the Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 452 on October 28, 2019. Ordinance No. 452 amended the Malibu Fire Code to make entering on properties closed to the public a trespass and to provide for personal notice of such closure when posting signs would be impractical. The amendment applies to lands in a wildfire risk area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) closed to the public by the fire code official at the request of the owners.
Malibu modeled its ordinance on similar measures adopted by the City of Los Angeles to mitigate the risk of wildfire in its VHFHSZ. The City’s proposed modifications to Title 32 are thus more restrictive than the requirements of the State Fire Code and reasonably necessary to address Malibu’s risk of wildfire as a jurisdiction lying wholly within the VHFHSZ.
ALTERNATIVES: No alternatives are recommended. The City adopted the 2022 California Fire Code on January 9, 2023, along with the 2022 CBSC. Now that Los Angeles County has adopted its new Fire Code, staff has reviewed the County’s amendments to the State Fire Code and recommends adopting the County Fire Code by reference rather than continue to rely upon the unmodified State Fire Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 504
2. Notice of Public Hearing
ORDINANCE NO. 504
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE TITLE 32 OF THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CODE, AS AMENDED, INCORPORATING THE CALIFORNIA
FIRE CODE, 2022 EDITION, AND RATIFYING THE
CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY’S BUILDING STANDARDS CONTAINED
IN TITLE 32, AS AMENDED, AND FINDING THE ACTION
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 8.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“8.12.010 Adoption of Fire Code. Except as hereinafter provided, Title 32, Fire Code, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and adopted on January 31, 2023, and in effect on March 2, 2023, adopting the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) is hereby incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below, and shall be known and may be cited as the Fire Code of the City of Malibu.
In the event of any conflict between provisions of the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code, or any amendment to the Fire Code contained in the Malibu Municipal Code, the provision contained in the latter-listed document shall control.
A copy of Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code and the California Fire Code, 2022 Edition, have each been deposited in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Malibu and shall be at all times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the public.” SECTION 2. Section 8.12.020 of the Malibu Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“8.12.020 Violation—Penalty. Every person violating any provision of Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code and appendices, adopted by reference by Section 8.12.010, or of any permit or license granted thereunder, or any rules or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction thereof he or she shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The imposition of such penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue. Each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.”
SECTION 3. Ratification of Building Standards.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 13869.7, subdivision (a), as part of its amendments to Title 32 (Fire Code), the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County proposed building standards relating to fire and panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and contained in the California Building Code. District amendments that constitute more restrictive building standards must be ratified by the Ordinance No. 504
____________________
City in order for those amendments to be enforceable within the City’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 13869.7, subdivision (c), by adoption of this ordinance, the City Council hereby ratifies the building standards included within the ordinance amending Title 32 (Fire Code) adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 31, 2023.
SECTION 4. Severability.
Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect on 30 days after its final adoption, and shall apply to all projects submitted to the City for plan check and/or permit application on or after that date.
SECTION 6. California Environmental Quality Act.
This Ordinance has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 7. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and enter it into the book of original ordinances. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission. The City Clerk shall also file a copy of the findings of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, together with the ordinance amending Title 32 (Fire Code) adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 31, 2023, with the Department of Housing and Community Development.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023. ______________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: ______________________
Ordinance No. 504
____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MALIBU
CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, March 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the item identified below via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s order.
Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please visit https://malibucity.org/VirtualMeeting and follow the directions for signing up to speak and downloading the Zoom application.
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE TITLE 32 OF THE 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CODE, WHICH INCORPORATES THE 2022 EDITION OF THE
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, AS AMENDED; ADOPTING LOCAL
AMENDMENTS TO SAID CODE; RATIFYING THE CONSOLIDATED
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY’S
BUILDING STANDARDS CONTAINED IN TITLE 32, AS AMENDED;
AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO
RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS
NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Environmental Sustainability Director Bundy at (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. Copies of Title 32 of Los Angeles County Code and the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code are on file with the City Clerk and can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting. _______________________________
Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director
Publish Dates: February 16, 2023, February 23, 2023, March 2, 2023
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: January 17, 2023 Meeting date: March 13, 2023 Subject: Updated Developer Fee Program for the Benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-12, adopting the updated developer fee and fire station plan for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (District) and rescinding Resolution No. 22-09.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
The City delegates the authority of administering and collecting the Developer Fee to the District.
WORK PLAN: This item was not included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. This is part of normal staff operations.
DISCUSSION: On February 12, 1991, during incorporation, the City of Malibu entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) establishing the Consolidated Fire Protection District (District). On July 12, 1990, prior to City incorporation, the Board adopted a resolution establishing the County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program for the benefit of the District. The Developer Fee Program (Program) was implemented August 1, 1990.
The Program goal is generating funds for capital projects necessary to maintain fire protection services within the existing service areas of the District. This Program funds the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of fire station facilities in the high-growth, urban-expansion areas of the District.
The District conducts annual evaluations of the Program and makes appropriate recommendations through the Detailed Fire Station Plan. The Fire Station Plan reflects fire station requirements based upon the most current growth projections in the following three designated developer fee areas of benefit: 1) Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains, 2) City Council Meeting
03-13-23
Item
4.C.
1
Santa Clarita Valley, and 3) Antelope Valley. The 2021-2022 rate in the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains developer fee area of benefit was $1.0414 per square foot of new development. During 2021-2022, $233,804.65 in revenue fees was collected for Area of Benefit 1; of that total, new development fees within Malibu city limits was $143,632.67.
On January 31, 2023, the Board conducted a public hearing to update the Developer Fee Program, including the updated Fire Station Plan and Developer Fee Summary. At this meeting the Board adopted a rate increase of $0.0931, raising it to $1.1345 per square foot of new development. This rate reflects current costs associated with land acquisition, fire station construction, purchase of apparatus and equipment, and administration in each of the three areas. This updated rate will be effective April 1, 2023, in the unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 1.
Under the agreement between the City and the District, the City must adopt, by resolution, the updated Developer Fee and Fire Station Plan within 60 days of the Board adoption. Most recently, the Council adopted Resolution No. 22-09 which will be rescinded by the adoption of Resolution No. 23-12.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 23-12
2. Board of Supervisors Adoption Letter dated January 31, 2023
3. Notice of Public Hearing
4. Developer Fees Revenue – Area I: Fiscal Year 2021-2022 2 ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU ADOPTING THE UPDATED DEVELOPER FEE AND FIRE
STATION PROGRAM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSOLIDATED
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 22-09 AND FINDING THE SAME
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
The City Council of The City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. On July 12, 1990, the board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles approved and adopted a County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (Developer Fee Program) in the Area of Benefit 1, Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains/Calabasas, 2, Santa Clarita Valley, and Area of Benefit 3, Antelope Valley (collectively “Areas of Benefit”) effective August 1, 1990, which is to be updated annually.
B. On February 12, 1991, during incorporation, the City of Malibu entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) establishing the Consolidated Fire Protection District (District).
C. On January 31, 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted by resolution the updated Developer Fee Program in the Areas of Benefit for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, hereinafter referred to as “Developer Fee Program,” to fund land acquisition, fire station construction and facilities, apparatus, equipment, and administration necessary to deliver service to the City of Malibu, hereinafter referred to as “City.”
D. The City has received fire protection and emergency medical services from the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, hereinafter referred to as “District.”
E. The revenue available to the District is insufficient to acquire, construct, and operate fire stations to address fire protection and emergency medical services needs resulting from new development within the City.
F. The City’s fire protection requirements have been addressed by the County’s updated Capital Improvement Plan.
3 Resolution No. 23-12
______________________
G. New development in the City will create substantial requirements on the District for expanded fire protection and emergency medical services.
H. The City desires to continue to receive an appropriate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to be provided by the District.
I. The City subscribes and endorses the regional concept of fire protection, which involves the District prioritizing the scheduling and placement of fire stations for the best interest of the City and the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains Developer Fee Area of Benefit 1, hereinafter referred to as “Area of Benefit 1.”
J. The City desires to assist and support the District in financing fire stations to address fire protection and emergency medical service requirements within the City that result from urban expansion and new development.
K. The continuation by the City of the Developer Fee Program would provide for the necessary new fire stations and apparatus required to deliver expanded fire protection and emergency services by new development within the City.
L. Residents of the City will benefit from the additional fire protection services provided by newly built fire stations funded by the Developer Fee Program within the Area of Benefit 1.
M. Government Code 66000, et seq., and Chapter 22.68 of the Los Angeles County Code regarding Developer Fee Program requirements have been met by the County.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Updated Developer Fee.
A. The updated Developer Fee Program in the Areas of Benefit for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County was adopted January 31, 2023, by the County of Los Angeles for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County and is approved and adopted by the City of Malibu.
B. The City of Malibu hereby delegates the authority of administering and collecting the Developer Fee within the territorial limits of the City of Malibu to the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County.
C. The updated Developer Fee Program will provide developer fee revenues from the Area of Benefit 1 to fund the acquisition, construction, 4 Resolution No. 23-12
______________________
improvement and equipping of facilities necessary for the District to deliver fire protection services in the area.
D. Fire station and equipment costs to be funded by the updated Developer Fee Program will be based on a determination by the County of the required services provision. The Developer Fee Program amount will be modified annually by the County to reflect the actual costs for fire station development. The current Developer Fee Program amount of $1.0414 will increase by $0.0931 raising it to $1.1345 per square foot of new development. Terms and conditions for in-kind consideration will be addressed on an individual basis by the District.
E. The City will require that building permit issuances be withheld until proof that the Developer Fee Program obligation has been met by the applicant.
F. In the event the City annexes additional territory, the newly annexed territory shall be bound by the provisions as set forth in this resolution.
G. The City shall forward a copy of this adopted resolution to the Chief of the Planning Division for the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.
SECTION 3. The updated Developer Fee Program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) in that it involved the collection of fees for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas.
SECTION 4. Resolution No. 22-09 is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of __________ 2023.
________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
5 Resolution No. 23-12
______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
6 The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (District) has completed its annual review of the Developer Fee Program and is making recommendations to increase the Developer Fee rates in the three Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas and update the Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan (Fire Station Plan). In addition, the annual Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report has been prepared for your Honorable Board’s approval.
SUBJECT
January 31, 2023
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Supervisors:
FISCAL YEAR-END REPORT, AND UPDATED DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (3RD AND 5TH DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES)
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING,
1. Find that updating the Developer Fee Program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) in that it involves the collection of fees for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution updating the Developer Fee Program which: a) approves Fire Station Plan dated October 2022; b) approves the Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report; and c) approves the 2022 Developer Fee Update Fee Calculation Summary to increase the Developer Fee rates in the unincorporated areas of each of the three Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas effective April 1, 2023. The updated Developer Fee rates reflect the current average costs associated with land acquisition, fire station construction, apparatus, equipment, and administration in each of the three Areas of Benefit as follows: Area of Benefit 1 (Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains and the City of Calabasas) = $1.1345 per square foot (+$0.0931); Area of Benefit 2 January 31, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
7 PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
On July 12, 1990, your Honorable Board adopted a resolution establishing a County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program for the benefit of the District. The Developer Fee Program was implemented August 1, 1990, to fund the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of fire station facilities in the high-growth, urban-expansion areas of the District. The resolution provides that the District will conduct annual evaluations of the Developer Fee Program and make appropriate recommendations to your Board.
Also, on September 4, 2007, your Board adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Calabasas wherein the parties agreed to exercise the power to levy the Developer Fee in the City of Calabasas and the City Council authorized your Board to conduct all proceedings in connection with the levy of the fee, and any modifications of the fee amount, within the city boundaries.
Fire Station Plan - Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the District has updated the Fire Station Plan to reflect fire station requirements based upon the most current growth projections in the three designated Developer Fee areas of benefit (Attachment A to the Resolution).
The Fire Station Plan identifies 12 permanent fire stations of which six stations have been completed, one expansion station, and three helispots that will be developed within the areas of benefit as a direct result of development in these areas.
Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report - Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006 require certain findings to be made with respect to any unexpended Developer Fee revenues and that within 180 days of the close of each fiscal year the District makes available to the public specific information for each account or fund established for Developer Fee revenues. In accordance with these requirements, the District’s Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report has been prepared (Attachment B to the Resolution). 2022 Developer Fee Update Fee Calculation Summary - The District has reviewed current costs for fire station development, equipping and furnishing, and apparatus, as well as administrative costs associated with the Developer Fee Program and have resulted in rate increases by eight and nine tenths percent (8.9%) in Area of Benefit 1 (Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains and the City of Calabasas), and nine and seven tenths percent (9.7%) in Area of Benefit 3 (Antelope Valley).
In Area of Benefit 2 (Santa Clarita Valley), the Developer Fee rate includes a component to recoup the District’s costs associated with financing the five new fire stations in the Santa Clarita Valley.
The cumulative financing costs, land costs, fire station development, equipping and furnishing, apparatus and administrative costs associated with the Developer Fee Program have resulted in an eight and three tenths percent (8.3%) increase to the fee rate in this Area.
Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals
The update of the Fire Station Plan supports the County’s Strategic Plan Goal No. III.3, Pursue Operational Effectiveness, Fiscal Responsibility, and Accountability, which leads the District to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations and resources and to continue the 2 (Santa Clarita Valley) = $1.5499 per square foot (+$0.1183); and Area of Benefit 3 (Antelope Valley) = $1.0881 per square foot (+$0.0961).
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
1/31/2023
8 essential services to the public.
FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
The District, being a Special District, is funded independently from the County’s General Fund and relies primarily on property tax revenue to provide essential fire protection and emergency medical services. However, the District also charges fees through the Developer Fee Program, which provides a revenue source to fund essential fire station facilities and equipment in the areas of urban growth. Increasing the fee rates in the unincorporated areas of the three Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas will enable the District to fully fund the development of new fire stations proportionate to the need necessitated by growth. Without the requested Developer Fee increase, fire station construction will be outpaced by development resulting in insufficient fire protection for the growth areas.
FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Fire Station Plan: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66002 and 66018, notice of the public hearing to update the Fire Station Plan must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Areas of Benefit and in the City of Calabasas. This exceeds the requirements of Government Code Sections 6061 and 65090 relating to the notice of public hearing. The Developer Fee Program is exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218.
Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, for each separate fund established by the District for Developer Fee revenues, the District is required to make available to the public the following information:
• A description of the type of fee in the fund.
• The fee rate.
• The beginning and ending balance of the fund.
• The total Developer Fees collected, and the interest earned. • An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the expenditure costs.
• The approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement.
• A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the fund. • The total costs of all refunds.
In addition, Government Code Section 66001 requires findings to be made once every five years with respect to unexpended Developer Fee revenues in connection with the public information requirements of Government Code Section 66006. These findings are included in the attached Developer Fee Funds 2021-22 Fiscal Year-End Report.
County Counsel has approved as to form the attached Resolution updating the Developer Fee Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
1/31/2023
9 This project is statutorily exempt per Section 15273 (a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines developed by the State Office of Planning Research in that it involves the collection of fees for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas.
IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS)
The updated fee rates will be imposed in the unincorporated areas in the three Developer Fee Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas effective April 1, 2023. As a result, the updated Developer Fee rates will be imposed in the cities of Malibu, Santa Clarita, and Lancaster upon adoption of a resolution updating the fee amounts by each respective city.
CONCLUSION
Upon conclusion of the public hearing and approval by your Honorable Board, please instruct the Executive Officer to return an adopted stamped copy of this letter with the adopted Resolution to the following office:
Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County Executive Office
Marcia Velasquez, Head of Planning and Executive Support 1320 N. Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063
[email protected]
The District’s contact can be reached at (323) 881-2404.
ANTHONY C. MARRONE
INTERIM FIRE CHIEF
Enclosures
c: Chief Executive Officer
County Counsel
Auditor-Controller
Respectfully submitted,
ACM:rf
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
1/31/2023
10 11
12 31st January 23
13 ATTACHMENT A
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEVELOPER FEE PROGRAM
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
OCTOBER 2022
14 Fire Station/Location In most cases a site has not yet been acquired; the locations are therefore approximate.
Anticipated Capital ∙ Project Costs
∙ Apparatus cost includes the full cost of the apparatus as well as outfitting and equipment costs. ∙ No District overhead costs nor an inflation factor have been applied; all figures are based on current costs.∙ Project Cost Estimate
Amount Budgeted
Equipment and StaffingFiscal Year The Fiscal Year period begins July 1 and ends June 30.
Initiating Priority Year Refers to the fiscal year that the land acquisition or construction of the fire station is anticipated to begin.Target Occupancy Target occupancy is approximately one to two years from the actual start of construction Where actual costs are not yet available, the anticipated capital projects costs are based upon the District's current cost experienced for construction, land and equipment.Developer Fee credit may be granted for the conveyance of a site, apparatus, or construction of a fire station to help offset the impact of development on the District.
Based on average costs for fire stations recently completed and stations under development; includes plans, specifications, consultant services, plan check, permit and inspection fees, construction, project management, furnishings, and equipment.The amount budgeted could be from Developer Fee funds collected or advanced from District general revenues or certificates or participation. All advances made and/or interest incurred by the District to finance station development are to be repaid when Developer Fee revenues are sufficient. If no amount is budgeted, the development of the fire station may be delayed until Developer Fee revenues are sufficient to fund the site acquisition and/or construction of the fire station.This plan reflects the proposed staffing and equipment to be implemented when each station and the development served by each station are built out in the respective areas of benefit. In many instances, a transitional staffing confirguration will be utilized until build out occurs.
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
This Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan (Plan) reflects the Consolidated Fire Protection District's (District) fire service requirements as of October 2022 based upon growth projections and contacts with cities and developers who have shared their development plans with the District.The Plan identifies 6 completed fire stations, 13 proposed fire stations, 1 expansion station, 3 helispots, and the necessary capital equipment that will be required in the Areas of Benefit as well as the anticipated costs and time frames provided that development occurs as expected. The anticipated costs identified in the Plan will be funded by Developer Fee revenues or funds which the District has advanced from other sources. These advances will be repaid to the District when sufficient Developer Fee revenue is generated.
Terms Used in Plan Explanation
Fiscal Year 2022-23
PREFACE
15 STATIONS OPERATIONAL: REIMBURSEMENT PENDING & IN-PROGRESS* Station Size, Equip.
Facility Funding Source* and Staffing Comments
Fire Station 128 Station Development Costs 9,066,972 $ Commercial Paper 9.976 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by Shappell Industries 28450 Whites Canyon Rd. Prinicipal Paid (720,000) Proceeds Engine for developer fee credit. Partial funding totalling $3.6 million was Santa Clarita (City) Balance 8,346,972 $ provided by the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act.
The fire station was completed and operational March 1, 2012.
Fire Station 132 Station Development Costs 8,127,873 $ Commercial Paper 9,746 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by K. Hovnanian Wes Thompson Ranch Prinicipal Paid (1,155,000) Proceeds Engine (VTTM 49621). Apparatus for this permanent station was 29310 Sand Canyon. Rd. Balance 6,972,873 $ transferred from temporary Fire Station 132. The permanentSanta Clarita (City) station was completed and operational March 12, 2012.Fire Station 143 Station Development Costs 7,913,986 $ 9,700 sq. ft. The land was conveyed by the developer, Newhall Land and 28580 Hasley Canyon Rd Prinicipal Paid (185,000) Commercial Paper Engine Farming, for developer fee credit. The fire station was completed Santa Clarita Valley Balance 7,728,986 $ Proceeds and operational in November 2016.(Unincorporated) Fire Station 150 Station Development Costs 11,483,583 $ Commercial Paper 19,935 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by Pardee Homes for 19190 Golden Valley Rd. Prinicipal Paid (1,800,000) Proceeds Haz. Mat. Task Force developer fee credit. A Hazardous Materials Task Force Santa Clarita (City) Balance 9,683,583 $ (Engine and Squad) assigned to Fire Station 76 was reassigned to staff this station.
BC/AC HQ The fire station was completed and operational Feb. 1, 2013.
Fire Station 156 Station Development Costs 7,512,226 $ Commercial Paper 11,152 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District from Newhall Land and 24505 Copper Hill Drive Prinicipal Paid (1,065,000) Proceeds Engine Farming for developer fee credit. Apparatus was transferred Rye Canyon Area Balance 6,447,226 $ from temporary Fire Station 156. The station was completed and Santa Clarita (City) operational in 2011.
Fire Station 104 $ 13,247,645 $234,000 11,450 sq. ft. This station replaces temporary Fire Station 104. The land was 26901 Golden Valley Road 931,230 100% Commercial Engine purchased by the District in Dec. 2010 and the station was completed(at Soledad Canyon) Paper Proceeds in 2020.
Santa Clarita (City) Total 14,178,875 $
Project cost est.
Apparatus
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Capital Project Costs
Fiscal Year 2022-23
*The District is financing costs that exceed the developer fee funds available within Area 2 - Santa Clarita Area of Benefit. The District will be reimbursed the costs it advanced, including interest and administrative charges, from Area 2 as revenues are collected, and from the City of Santa Clarita for the City's proportionate share of fire station facilities financing.
16 PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS
Amt. Budgeted/ Station Size
Facility Funding Source & Equipment Comments/Status
Fire Station 33 Expansion Land $ - $0 1 Additional The expansion of Fire Station 33 is neccessary to 44947 Date Ave. Project cost est. TBD Engine Co. accommodate an additional engine company needed as a result Lancaster Apparatus 931,230 of the increased call volume experienced by Engine 33 due to (Unincorporated) growth in the area. Construction costs will be included once an Total $ 931,230 estimate of the work to expand the station is completed.
LAND ACQUISITION ONLY:
F.Y. 2022-23
Amt. Budgeted/
Facility Funding Source
Fire Station 138 Land 361,548 $ $871,000 The City of Palmdale expressed interest in assisting with site acquisition. The Avenue S and Tierra Subida Developer Fees District will pursue City participation, however, fire station development will not(Unincorporated Palmdale Area) commence until significant development in the surrounding vicinity occurs.
Fire Station 195 Land 361,548 $ $400,000 The City of Palmdale expressed interest in assisting with site acquisition. In addition,Pearblossom Hwy/47th St. E. Developer Fees there is a proposed development project within this location for which the Fire District (Unincorporated Palmdale Area) may negotiate a station site. Fire station development will not commence until significant development in the vicinity occurs.
Capital Project Costs Comments/Status
Early land acquisition will ensure that the future fire stations will be optimally placed when these areas develop in the future. The progress of development in these areas will be monitored for timing of the future construction of these stations:
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Capital Project Costs
AnticipatedAnticipated
Fiscal Year 2022-23
17 Station Size
Facility and Equipment Comments/Status
Fire Station 46 (formerly 177) Land - 13,500 sq. ft. Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for theNewhall Ranch Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in theSanta Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 3,307,108 Quint Mission Village. Newhall will also construct a smaller auxiliary building Total 13,698,661 $ on the same site of the Fire Station. (Tract No. 61105) Fire Station 113 (formerly 175) Land - $ 9,800 sq. ft. Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for theNewhall Ranch Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in theSanta Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,581,644 Squad Landmark Village. (Tract No. 53108) Total 11,973,197 $
Fire Station 109 (formerly 176) Land - $ 9,800 sq. ft. Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for theNewhall Ranch Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,193,820 Portrero/Homestead. (Tract No. 60678) Total 11,585,373 $
Fire Station A (formerly 179) Land - $ 10,000 sq. ft. The developer is to provide a station site in the Lyons Ranch Project forLyons Ranch Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine the developer fee credit. (Tract No. 83301)Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,193,820 Total 11,585,373 $
Fire Station B (formerly 109) Land 361,548 $ 10,000 sq. ft.Fox Field - vicinity of 40th St. W Station Dev. Costs 10,391,553 Engineand Avenue G Apparatus 1,193,820City of Lancaster (City) Total 11,946,921 $ Fire Station C (formerly 113) Land - $ 10,000 sq. ft. The developer is to provide a site within the Avanti South Project area to Avanti South Project Station Dev. Costs 10,391,553 Engine the District for developer fee credits. (Tract No. 74312) 70th Street West and Ave. K-8 Apparatus 1,193,820City of Lancaster (City) Total 11,585,373 $ Fire Station D (formerly 133) Land 4,190,456 $ 10,000 sq. ft. Agreement with developer, City of Santa Clarita for the site executed on Needham Ranch Parkwy Project cost est. 10,891,553 Engine 9/9/2019. The site was conveyed to District by Needham Ranch fornear Eternal Valley Mem. Park Apparatus 1,193,820 developer fee credit. (Tract No. 50283)Santa Clarita (City) Total $ 16,275,829(Helispot) Helispot is completed and station construction delayed until further notice.
Fire Station E (formerly 600) Land $ - 10,000 sq. ft. The developer, Pardee Homes, is to convey a station site to the Valley Cyn. Road at Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine District for developer fee credits (Tract No. 48086)Spring Canyon Apparatus 1,193,820 Total $ 11,585,373
Capital Project Costs
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2022-23
18 Station Size
Facility Capital Project Costs and Equipment Comments/Status
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Fire Station F (formerly 174) Land 361,548 $ 4,982 sq. ft. The District is in the process of identifying potential sites to Neenach Fire Station Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine purchase or lease for a call fire station. Antelope Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,193,820 $ Amount Budgeted/Funding Source: $294,000 Developer Fees Total 11,946,921 $
Fire Station G (formerly 142) Fire Station 9,324,574 $ 10,000 sq. ft. The land was acquired by the District in July 2010. A Sierra Highway/Clanfield Project cost est. 10,891,553 Engine helispot is planned to be constructed at this station site.Antelope Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,193,820(Helispot) Total 21,409,947 $ Proposed HelispotTesoro Land - $ The District has requested that a helispot be provided within theSanta Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Helispot 500,000 Tesoro Del Valle Development Project. (Tract No. 51644) (Helispot) Apparatus
Total 500,000 $
Other Proposed StationsFire Station H (formerly 139) Land - $ 10,000 sq. ft. Per the developer agreement for the Anaverde/City Ranch Project, the Anaverde/City Ranch Project cost est. - Engine developer is required to provide land and construct a permanent fire Palmdale (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 station to be conveyed to the District.
Total $ 1,193,820
Fire Station I (formerly 190) Land $ - 10,000 sq. ft. Under a 1992 developer agreement for the Ritter Ranch Project, the Ritter Ranch Project cost est. - Engine developer is required to provide land and construct a permanent fire Palmdale (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 station to be conveyed to the District.
Total $ 1,193,820
Centennial Fire Station 1 Land $ - 13,000 sq. ft. Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement withCentennial Project Project cost est. - Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total $ 1,193,820 Project.
Centennial Fire Station 2 Land $ - 10,000 sq. ft. Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement withCentennial Project Project cost est. - Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total $ 1,193,820 Project.
Centennial Fire Station 3 Land $ - 10,000 sq. ft. Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement withCentennial Project Project cost est. - Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total $ 1,193,820 Project.
19 Station Size
Facility Capital Project Costs and Equipment Comments/Status
DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Centennial Fire Station 4 Land - $ 10,000 sq. ft. Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement with Centennial Project Project cost est. - Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,193,820 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total 1,193,820 $ Project.
Fire Station J (formerly Northlake/180) Land 1,306,800 $ 10,000 sq. ft. Developer to construct the proposed project R2018-00408-(5) with a future fire North of Lake Hughes, East of I-5, West Project cost est. 10,391,553 Engine station to be built as part of Phase 2 in future. FS is expected to have aof Castaic Lake Apparatus 1,193,820 1.4 acre pad. (Tract No. 73336) Castaic Canyon (Unincorporated) Total 12,892,173 $ FS TBD Land 1,306,800 $ 10,000 sq. ft. Development in this area is limited at this time and construction East Calabasas area between Project cost est. 10,035,300 Engine will not commence until substantial development occurs. Stations 68 and 69 Apparatus 1,193,820
Total $ 12,535,920
F\Planning\Developer Fee\2022-23 Update\2022 Five Year Plan Update.xls
20 ATTACHMENT B
Area of Benefit 1 Area of Benefit 2 Area of Benefit 3
LACoFD - 50201 DA 7 LACoFD - 50202 DA 8 LACoFD - 50203 DA 9 Malibu/Santa Monica Mtns. (a) Santa Clarita Valley (b) Antelope Valley (c) Fiscal Year 2021-22 Beginning Balance $4,684,235.63 $9,310,363.88 $30,100,880.19Total Developer Fee Revenue Collected (d) 233,804.65 3,118,488.35 1,240,601.00 Interest Earned 19,119.06 40,641.21 124,174.71Fund Expenditures (318.30) (318.31) (318.30)NSF Checks - - -Refunds - - -Fiscal Year 2022-23 Beginning Balance $4,936,841.04 (e) $12,469,175.13 (f) $31,465,337.60 (g) (a) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 1 and the Cities of Calabasas and Malibu. (b) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 2 and the City of Santa Clarita. (c) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 3 and the City of Lancaster. (d) The developer fee rates during FY 2021-22 were as follows: Area 1 = 1.0414 Area 2 = 1.4316 Area 3 = 0.9921
(e) Funds to be used to develop a fire station in the East Calabasas area when substantial development begins to occur in the area.(f) Funds use to fund the construction of permanent Fire Station 104 and to reimburse the District for the costs incurred in the development and financing of fire stations 128, 132, 143, 150, and 156.(g) Funds to be used for land acquisition for Fire Stations 138 and 195 in the unincorporated Palmdale area, expansion of Fire Station 33, and construction of additional stations as detailed in the 2022 Fire Station Plan update. f\Planning\developer fee\2022-23 Fee Update\2021-22 Fiscal Year-end Report.xls
CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
DEVELOPER FEE FUNDS
2021-22 FISCAL YEAR-END REPORT
21 ATTACHMENT C
Proportionate Proportionate Proportionate
Developer Fee Calculated Fire Station Cost Calculated Fire Station Cost Calculated Fire Station Cost Cost Component Cost Share Applied Cost Share Applied Cost Share Applied Average Land Cost $ 1,306,800 100.00% 1,306,800 $ $ 1,646,568 100.00% 1,646,568 $ $ 361,548 100.00% 361,548 $ Station Development Costs 10,035,300 100.00% 10,035,300 10,391,553 100.00% 10,391,553 100.00% 10,391,553 10,391,553 Financing Costs n/a - - 20,395,344 20.00% 4,079,069 n/a - - Engine Cost 1,193,820 100.00% 1,193,820 1,193,820 100.00% 1,193,820 1,193,820 100.00% 1,193,820 Quint Cost 2,113,288 20.95% 442,734 2,113,288 20.95% 442,734 2,113,288 20.95% 442,734 Squad Cost 387,824 32.80% 127,206 387,824 32.80% 127,206 387,824 32.80% 127,206 Total Cost Per Station $ 13,105,860 Total Cost Per Station $ 17,880,950 Total Cost Per Station $ 12,516,861 Administrative Costs Administrative Costs 91,909 150,086 Administrative Costs 141,188 Total Area 1 Costs $ 13,197,769 Total Area 2 Costs $ 18,031,036 Total Area 3 Costs $ 12,658,049 Total Square Feet of Total Square Feet of Total Square Feet of Development per Station 11,633,307 Development per Station 11,633,307 Development per Station 11,633,307Developer Fee Amount Developer Fee Amount Developer Fee Amount Per Square Foot $ 1.1345 Per Square Foot $ 1.5499 Per Square Foot $ 1.0881 Note: The calculated costs for the apparatus listed above (Engine, Quint, Squad) are inclusive of the base unit purchase price plus outfitting, equipment, and communications costs.
F:\Developer Fee\2022-23 Update\2022 Update Fee Calc. Summary-Attachment C.xls
CITY OF CALABASAS
MALIBU/SANTA MONICA MTNS., SANTA CLARITA VALLEY ANTELOPE VALLEY
DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2022 DEVELOPER FEE UPDATE
FEE CALCULATION SUMMARY
AREA OF BENEFIT 1 - AREA OF BENEFIT 2 - AREA OF BENEFIT 3 - 22 ATTACHMENT 3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MALIBU
CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, March 13, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the item identified below via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, pursuant to AB 361 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s order.
Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please visit https://malibucity.org/VirtualMeeting and follow the directions for signing up to speak and downloading the Zoom application.
Updated Developer Fee Program for the Benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County
Under the Developer Fee Agreement between the Consolidated Fire Protection District and the City, the City must adopt an updated Developer Fee Program and Fire Station Plan. If adopted, the Resolution would increase the current developer fee amount of $1.1345 per square foot by $0.0931 raising it to $1.2276 to reflect current costs associated with land acquisition, fire station construction, purchase of apparatus and equipment, and administration.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO
RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS
NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Environmental Sustainability Director Bundy at (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting. _______________________________
Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director
Publish Date: February 16, 2023, February 23, 2023, March 2, 2023 23 Developer Fee
Area 1
Malibu/Santa Monica
FY 2021/2022
Months Collections Interest Refunds NSF Expenditures Grand Total Beginning Balance 9,714,864.43 674,937.64 (55,976.30) (6,111.61) (5,643,478.53) 4,684,235.63 July 2021 - 2,390.71 2,390.71
August 2021 7,533.02 1,183.81 8,716.83
September 2021 1,125.78 991.18 2,116.96
October 2021 21,955.63 1,545.35 23,500.98
November 2021 2,158.39 1,992.69 4,151.08
December 2021 15,969.56 2,517.60 18,487.16
January 2022 45,898.82 1,085.17 46,983.99
February 2022 9,065.44 508.02 9,573.46
March 2022 11,748.87 633.78 (318.30) 12,064.35
April 2022 56,445.93 1,278.99 57,724.92
May 2022 23,814.78 1,749.86 25,564.64
June 2022 38,088.43 3,241.90 41,330.33
22/23 13th Period
Total 233,804.65 19,119.06 - - (318.30) 252,605.41
Ending Balance 9,948,669.08 694,056.70 (55,976.30) (6,111.61) (5,643,796.83) 4,936,841.04 AS OF 13TH PERIOD 2021
C:\Users\e657798\Desktop\FY2122 DEVFEE MONTHLY REPORT 1/24/2023 ATTACHMENT 4
24 DP NO DP DATE APPLICANT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL PAYMENT OTC#00395 08/02/21 MARK MEYER/ANDREW SHELDON 3605 NORANDA LANE MALIBU 7,052.62 OTC#00684 08/24/21 JOSEPH LEZAMA-BURDGE & ASSOCI 29458 BLUEWATER RD MALIBU 480.40 OTC#00802 09/01/21 JULIE HART DESIGN 6805 DUME DR. MALIBU 1,125.78 OTC#01222 10/04/21 ARSHIA ARCHITECTS, LTD. 31479 PCH MALIBU 9,922.39OTC#01350 10/13/21 ALEXANDER MARTIN ARCHITECTS-LOND 28815 GRAYFOX ST MALIBU 6,811.94 OTC#01473 10/22/21 ADAM BRESSLER 30065 TRIUNFO DR AGOURA 944.30 OTC#01514 10/26/21 FRANK MABANTE 29140 CLIFFSIDE DR MALIBU 4,277.00 OTC#01617 11/02/21 BETH PALMER 26885 MULHOLLAND HWY CALABASAS 1,304.35 OTC#01702 11/09/21 SHAWN BROWN 29824 CUTHBERT ROAD MALIBU 854.04 OTC#02046 12/03/21 KAMYAR LASHGARI 28465 VIA ACERO STREET MALIBU 8,681.12 OTC#02301 12/21/21 OSCAR MCGRAW ARCHITECTURE & 20890 WAVEVIEW DR. TOPANGA 512.42OTC#02301 12/21/21 STEVE KENT 2551 OLD TOPANGA CANYON ROAD TOPANGA 4,930.14 OTC#02301 12/21/21 DINA TABOLSKY 3124 BAILARD ROAD MALIBU 1,102.48 OTC#02260 12/17/21 CHRISTINE SABATINI 27466 PARK VISTA RD. AGOURA 743.40 OTC02491 01/07/22 JAY VANOS ARCHITECT 2930 SWEETWATER MESA RD MALIBU 20,335.86 OTC02555 01/13/22 DANIEL YODER 28116 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU 5,220.31 OTC02625 01/13/22 ROD & KATHY LEARD 4318 CORNELL RD AGOURA 727.88 OTC02649 01/21/22 LIORA SKY 557 S WESTLAKE BLVD MALIBU 8,996.53 OTC02680 01/25/22 PILAR MUTUC 24577 MULHOLLAND HWY CALABASAS 10,618.24OTC02788 02/02/22 ATELIER ARCHITECTS 23936 MALIBU RD MALIBU 2,186.54 OTC02905 02/10/22 CLASSICAL PROGRESSION, INC. 7005 GRASSWOOD AVE. MALIBU 5,748.27 OTC02968 02/16/22 GIGI GOYETTE 33169 DECKER SCHOOL ROAD MALIBU 465.84 OTC03038 02/23/22 LIORA SHPOLANSKY 557 WESTLAKE BLVD MALIBU 664.79 OTC03317 03/16/22 LARRY HARRIS 22271 CARBON MESA ROAD MALIBU 11,748.87 OTC03529 04/01/22 PAT BLOTE - RRM DESIGN GROUP 23823 VENTURA BLVD. CALABASAS 30,764.85 OTC03758 04/19/22 NICK BARSOCCHINI 6722 FERNHILL DRIVE MALIBU 1,244.32 OTC03748 04/18/22 BETH PALMER 26777 MULHOLLAND HWY CALABASAS 10,404.73 OTC03870 04/27/22 MAE WACHTEL 31335 LOBO CANYON ROAD AGOURA HILLS 6,672.06 OTC03870 04/27/22 DEVA BERG 5939 BUSH DRIVE MALIBU 7,359.97 OTC03937 05/03/22 DEAN LEVIN 23324 PARK COLOMBO CALABASAS 512.36OTC04012 05/06/22 ARCHITECTURE 5814 PHILIP AVE MALIBU 873.45 OTC04113 05/17/22 SORENSON ARCHITECTS 3868 PUERCO CANYON RD MALIBU 6,433.77 OTC03975 05/05/22 MICHEAL DEVALE 28935 SELFDRIDGE DRIVE MALIBU 4,390.54 OTC03989 05/06/22 NEST ARCHITECTURE, INC. 22755 CHAMERA TOPANGA 3,746.96 DEVELOPER FEES REVENUE - AREA 1
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
25 DP NO DP DATE APPLICANT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL PAYMENT OTC03989 05/06/22 NICK BARSOCCHINI 6722 FERNHILL DRIVE MALIBU 38.68 OTC04255 05/26/22 KAYLEY RYAN 6642 ZUMIREZ DRIVE MALIBU 7,455.38 OTC04213 05/24/22 ALEX FILLER 18447 WAKECREST DRIVE MALIBU 156.21OTC04213 05/24/22 MAE WACHTEL 31335 LOBO CANYON ROAD AGOURA HILLS 207.43 OTC04360 06/03/22 CELIA PARKER 20681 MEDLEY LANE TOPANGA 3,707.38 OTC04525 06/16/22 PETER TOLKIN TOLO ARCHITECTUR 5814 PHILIP AVE MALIBU 63.81 OTC04543 06/17/22 SEGIO ORTIZ 2210 CAREFUL AVE AGOURA HILLS 2,819.06 OTC04627 06/24/22 NICK BARRSOCCHINI 32237 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU 12,227.07OTC04650 06/27/22 BIZHAN KHALEELI 25087 AMBERCROMBIE LANE CALABASAS 11,556.42 OTC04592 06/29/22 RYAN KAYLEY 6626 ZUMIREZ DRIVE MALIBU 7,714.69 TOTAL $233,804.65
TOTAL Outside Malibu City Limits $90,171.98 TOTAL Malibu $143,632.67 26
Agenda Item #5.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob Houston, Interim Deputy City Manager
Reviewed by: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: March 1, 2023 Meeting date: March 13, 2023 Subject: Malibu Community Labor Exchange Office Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file an update on Malibu Community Labor Exchange office project.
FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is required. Funding for this project is included in the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in Account No. 215-7070-7800.
WORK PLAN: This item was included as item #7.l. in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
DISCUSSION:
Summary
The City has been renting a temporary office trailer for Malibu Community Labor Exchange (MCLE) since winter 2018. Beginning in November 2021, staff initiated discussions with LA County and Santa Monica College (SMC) in an effort to procure a permanent office structure for the MCLE. Through extensive collaboration between all parties there is now a path forward to completing the permanent structure project. SMC will undertake the steps to ready the final site by constructing underground utilities, completing fencing, and preparing the parking surface. City staff are working to finalize CDBG funding to cover the remaining costs to complete the construction of the MCLE permanent structure. Steps underway include obtaining a geotechnical report for the permanent site, finding a modular office company to construct a foundation and office with an ADA/Accessible restroom in it, and completing the coastal CUP process. The Council is being asked to authorize the funding of both the temporary trailer rentals using CDBG funds. A plan and future costs associated with completing the permanent office structure is also discussed.
City Council Meeting
03-13-23
Item
5.A.
Agenda Item #5.A.
Background
As plans for the SMC Malibu Satellite Campus Project started to take shape, it was identified that the existing MCLE trailer would need to be relocated to accommodate campus construction. It was also determined that the trailer was dilapidated and unable to be relocated. On November 24, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-70 authorizing CDBG funds to be used to purchase and install a permanent officer structure for MCLE on the County property. Due to the construction schedule and footprint of the Malibu Satellite Campus Project, the City’s Permanent Office Project was put on hold.
Council subsequently directed that CDBG funds be allocated to cover the costs to rent a temporary office trailer for MCLE.
In November 2021, in anticipation the completion of the SMC project, the City reached out to Los Angeles County and Santa Monica College representatives to finalize the proposed plans for the project and draft the associated agreements.
Since that time, City staff has been working with representatives from the County and SMC as they revised the location and layout of the proposed permanent office project in northwest corner of the County property. It was initially assumed that the permanent office project would involve a standard procurement and a straightforward permitting process.
As staff looked further into the permitting requirements for the project, it was determined that the trailer would need a coastal development permit (CDP) with a variance to the City’s Floor Area Ratio rules and a conditional use permit (CUP). It was estimated that the permitting process could take up to 4 months.
When the City received the revised plans from the County in June 2022 and prepared the permit submittal, it was determined that the office space could not be a trailer and would instead need to be fixed office with a permanent foundation and an ADA/Accessible restroom. In order to permit and construct a foundation for the trailer, the City will need to prepare a geotechnical study and have foundation design plans created. The costs and time associated with the required geotechnical study and design work were not anticipated in the project budget.
On January 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-06 authorizing and approving the use of $15,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Malibu Community Labor Exchange (MCLE) and the use of $98,000 in CDBG funds for a permanent office for MCLE.
As of March 2023, the City, MCLE representative, the County, and SMC staff have collaborated to layout the steps needed to complete this project and determine what responsibilities each party has. Staff have rented an ADA/Accessible restroom trailer to sit beside the office trailer, and the extended agreement for both the restroom and the office trailer needs to be approved by the City Council as the term for the rental is likely to extend
Agenda Item #5.A.
to the end of the calendar year depending on when SMC can complete their site improvements.
Cost Summary
Temporary rental expenditure summary
For the remainder of the 2022-23 fiscal year, there is a request to appropriate $39,847 from CDBG funds for expenditures through the end of June to rent the office and restroom trailer, pay for delivery and future pick up of the restroom trailer, as well as pay for waste servicing for the restroom trailer. Funding exists in the City’s CDBG permanent office budget to cover these expenditures. CDBG staff have been provided approval to repurpose the permanent office funding for temporary expenses to continue to support this complex project.
Rental expenses for the two trailers are estimated to continue until December of 2023 which equates to six additional months of charges that total $34,143. Funding from the City’s CDBG budget can also be appropriated during the upcoming budget process to fund these expenses.
Permanent office expenditure summary
The estimate for the purchase of a permanent office modular office that contains an ADA/Accessible Restroom is $120,000. The estimate to cover expenses including foundation design, foundation construction, geotechnical report costs, and miscellaneous permitting and construction costs is $150,000. This total cost of $270,000 exceeds the City’s CDBG allocation so a request to obtain a CDBG revolving loan is underway to fund this upcoming expense. Staff will return with a future staff report to finalize receipt of CDBG loan funds for appropriation to fund the permanent office project.
ATTACHMENTS: None
Agenda Item # 5.B.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: March 3, 2023 Meeting date: March 13, 2023 Subject: Permanent Outdoor Seating Areas
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive a presentation on the status of outdoor dining and the current application process and consideration for approval of permanent outdoor dining; and 2) Provide guidance to staff on whether to process amendments to the City’s Ordinances pertaining to the operation of restaurants.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no significant fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
WORK PLAN: This item was not included in the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
DISCUSSION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City declared a State of Local Emergency in March 2020. To-date, the City has enacted numerous measures, including measures to assist local businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 465U, establishing the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program (TRRP) (Attachment 1). The Ordinance allows local restaurants to obtain a permit to temporarily create outdoor seating areas adjacent to common areas and parking lots. Restaurants must obtain a permit from the City prior to creating the temporary outdoor seating area.
Since June 2020, the Planning Department has approved 17 permits for expanded seating. Each approval was temporary in nature and considered the site-specific needs of the business and overall conformance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The range of allowed outdoor seating areas fluctuated between eight to 120 seats. As of the date of this report, a total of 51 parking spaces were initially proposed to be utilized to accommodate outdoor seating, however based on site inspections a total of 22 parking spaces are being utilized for outdoor dining areas. Overall, the program has been successful, and no formal complaints have been received.
City Council Meeting
03-13-23
Item
5.B.
Agenda Item # 5.B.
The Ordinance remains in effect until the Council terminates its Declaration of Local Emergency, thereby also repealing the Ordinance. This is because the Ordinance is temporary in nature and limited to promote health, safety, stability and expeditious recovery within the local business community in the City during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and to prevent avoidable business closures, thereby serving the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare.
On January 10, 2022, the Council received a status update on the TRRP. Staff was directed to prepare an amendment to the Ordinance to increase the timeframe for removal of all temporary outdoor seating areas from 72 hours to 30 days after the Ordinance is repealed. The amendment was intended to provide for more certainty in the TRRP by providing each restaurant with temporary outdoor space a reasonable amount of time to return their facility to its pre-Ordinance condition. This could include such actions as removing all temporary decking and coverings used for expanded seating, restoring parking stalls for vehicle use, and relocating tables and chairs to indoor locations. On February 14, 2022, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 498U, as amended to increase the timeframe to remove the temporary restaurant seating areas to 90 days. To-date, the City remains under its Declaration of Local Emergency and the Ordinance and TRRP remain active.
As discussed, the Ordinance would be repealed upon the Council’s termination of its Declaration of Local Emergency. Within 90 days following the termination of the local emergency, all temporary outdoor seating areas would need to be removed. City code enforcement would be monitoring such activity to ensure that all areas are removed in accordance with the Ordinance and TRRP.
However, should Council desire to allow the outdoor seating areas on a permanent basis, including new requests for permanent outdoor seating, the following actions and criteria should be considered.
1. Code Amendments
Allowing for extended outdoor seating would require amendments by ordinance to the Zoning Code (MMC) and Local Coastal Program (LCP). The amendments would be needed to authorize uses in certain zones (e.g., outdoor seating for a restaurant in the Commercial Neighborhood Zone), codify outdoor seating requirements, and ensure that coastal resources, such as public parking and public views, would not be impacted.
Provisions of the TRRP would be assessed for integration into the amendments. Council would first need to initiate the amendments and indicate if staff should coordinate with the Council’s Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee (ZORACES) before obtaining a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the
Agenda Item # 5.B.
City Council. The LCP amendment would require certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) before the permanent outdoor seating allowance could take effect.
2. Discretionary Permits
In order to permanently authorize outdoor seating, at minimum an applicant would be subject to the City’s conditional use permitting (CUP) process. Applicants would either need to request a new CUP or amend an existing CUP. This is because a restaurant use (new or expansion) is a conditionally permitted use in the City. The Planning Commission is the permitting authority for these types of CUPs. Each request would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and additional development permits may be needed, such as an administrative plan review (APR) or coastal development permit (CDP). Other approvals from the County Fire Department, County Environmental Health, and Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) may also be required.
3. Building Permits
Strict building code inspections were not done for the temporary outdoor seating areas authorized by a TRRP on the basis that these areas are limited to the extent the City is in a declared local emergency and that any associated improvements would be removed once the Ordinance is repealed. However, for permanent outdoor seating areas, Building code compliance shall be required to ensure public safety and accessibility. Several elements are considered depending on the type of outdoor area proposed including structural elements (e.g., decks, covers, and railings), electrical, plumbing (water and natural gas), occupancy load, accessibility (ADA), and ingress/egress. Building code compliance is ensured by plan checks, building permits, and inspections.
4. Wastewater Compliance
The amount of wastewater generated by a restaurant is affected by its service area. All commercial properties in the City are serviced either by onsite wastewater treatment systems or wastewater treatment facilities such as the commercial properties located in Phase I of the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility area. In the event a restaurant desires to permanently expand its seating area, the increased service area is considered to generate more wastewater. As such, an applicant needs to demonstrate that the treatment system/facility has capacity for the increased wastewater generated. These reviews are conducted as part of the City’s standard permit process. In the Civic Center, each commercial parcel has been allocated an average daily flow rate based on its uses as part of the assessment district. Requests to permanently expand seating areas must demonstrate that the service area would not exceed the parcel’s allocation for that type of use. Note that standard wastewater compliance reviews were waived for temporary outdoor seating areas authorized by a TRRP on the basis that these areas are limited to the extent the City is in a declared local emergency and that any associated improvements would be removed once the Ordinance is repealed.
Agenda Item # 5.B.
5. Amnesty
Should Council desire to allow extended outdoor seating areas on a permanent basis, consideration of a program that allows existing outdoor dining decks to remain while a permanent approval is pursued could be evaluated. The intent of this type of program would allow an applicant to diligently seek permanent approval of a temporary outdoor seating area authorized by the TRRP, along with continued use of the temporary area while the permanent request is being processed. However, it is important to note that any outdoor seating authorized by the TRRP (that is still in existence) had not received standard conformance reviews by the City, including compliance with previously issued CUPs, Building code regulations, and wastewater systems and facilities. As such, it is unknown if existing improvements would be able to demonstrate compliance with City requirements even if this type of program was in place.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Council discuss options regarding permanent outdoor seating areas upon termination of the Declaration of Local Emergency (COVID19 pandemic) and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 465U
2. Ordinance No. 498U
ORDINANCE NO. 465U
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU IMPLEMENTING
A TEMPORARY RESTAURANT RECOVERY PROGRAM TO ALLOW
RESTAURANTS TO ALTER OPERATIONS TO ADD SEATING AREA TO
AID PHYSICAL DISTANCING DURING THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY,
FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY
The City Council of the Malibu does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose and Findings.
A. International, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID- 19, (COVID- 19).
B. On March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID
19. C. On March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for the spread of COVID- 19.
D. On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and announced that the federal government would make emergency funding available to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread, and addressing the effects, of COVID-19.
E. On March 14, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code section 2.52.060.
F. On March 16, 2020, the City Council ratified the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services and declared the existence of a local emergency to ensure the availability of mutual aid and aid the City’s response to COVID-19.
G. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 which ordered all individuals living in the State to stay home or at their place ofresidence, except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors.
H. The Los Angeles County Health Officer issued a series of orders that mirrored and expanded on this Order, including on March 21, 2020, that (1) prohibit all public Attachment 1
Ordinance No. 465U
and private group events and gatherings, (2) orders all persons to remain in their homes except to travel to and from Essential Businesses, to work at a Healthcare Operation or Essential Infrastructure, to engage in Essential Activities, or to participate in an individual or family outdoor activity, while practicing physical distancing. All of the following were ordered closed immediately: (1) Non Essential Retail Businesses, (2) Indoor Malls and Shopping Centers (including both Essential and Non-Essential Businesses within, except Essential Businesses that can be accessed from the exterior of the building), (3) Indoor and Outdoor Playgrounds, Flea Markets and Swap Meets, and (4) bars and nightclubs that do not serve food, gyms and fitness centers, movie theaters, live performance theaters, concert halls, arenas, stadiums, bowling alleys, arcades, and wineries, breweries, and tap rooms that provide tastings. On-site dining was prohibited at restaurants and other food facilities. The City is subject to the orders of the County Health Official.
On April 14, 2020, the State presented its Resilience Roadmap (Roadmap), a four stage plan for modifying the State Public Health Officer’s stay-at-home order.
J. On May 4, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-60-20 which informed local health jurisdictions and industry sectors that they may gradually reopen under new modifications and guidance provided by the state per the May 7, 2020 Public Health Order. The announcement provided a new framework to allow counties to move more quickly through Stage 2 ifthey attest that they meet the State’s readiness criteria.
K. On May 7, 2020, the Public Health Order described an attestation opportunity for counties to move through Stage 2, opening additional sectors of their economy at their own pace. To qualify, counties must attest that hospitalization and test positivity rates are stable or declining; that they have a significant level of preparedness with testing, contact tracing, PPE and hospital surge; and that they have adequate plans related to county-wide containment. Allowing this initial approach to move forward for approximately 10-14 days allowed the state and counties to see the early impact of these modifications to the statewide Stay-atHome order. To date, one county has retracted their attestation for one week following an increase in new cases.
L. On May 18, 2020, State public health leaders announced a new attestation process, which includes criteria important for larger, more densely populated counties such as the County of Los Angeles. To qualify, counties must attest that hospitalization and test positivity rates are stable or declining; that they have a significant level of preparedness with testing, contact tracing, PPE and hospital surge; and that they have adequate plans related to county-wide containment.
M. On May 26, 2020, the County of Los Angeles issued a new Health Order easing restrictions on certain activities including in-person faith-based services and retail shopping with certain safety protocols including capacity limitations while Ordinance No. 465U
continuing to encourage all County residents to remain in their residences whenever practicable and for people 65 years old or older and anyone with underlying health conditions to remain in their residences as much as possible, leaving their residences only when necessary to seek medical care, exercise, or obtain food or other necessities.
N. On May 29, 2020, the State approved the County’s application to move into advanced Stage 2 which allows for the reopening of retail stores and in-person dining with limited seating capacity and physical distancing.
0. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Health, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health have all issued recommendations including but not limited to physical distancing, canceling or postponing group events, working from home, and other precautions to protect public health and prevent transmission of this communicable virus.
P. This ordinance is temporary in nature and only intended to promote health, safety, stability and expeditious recovery within the local business community in the City during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and to prevent avoidable business closures, thereby serving the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare.
Q. In the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to exercise authority to adopt this ordinance related to the protection of life and property, to support the financial recovery of the local food service business community, and provide space for community residents and visitors to safely dine-out. During the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, capacity limitations and/or physical distancing requirements have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on businesses’ ability to operate and generate revenue at a time when many are already struggling financially in the wake of the stay at home orders and 2018 Woolsey Fire.
R. Promoting stability and financial recovery amongst commercial tenancies is conducive to public health, allowing businesses to follow the advice and directives of public health officials to limit indoor seating capacity in order to allow for physical distancing, with reduced fear of more significant hardship.
S. Permitting certain temporary changes to the operating conditions and expanding outdoor dining seating to allow dining service in a way that is compliant with applicable physical distancing requirements and other public health orders during the period oflocal emergency declared in response to COVID-19 allows businesses an opportunity to remain viable without compromising the public health or resulting in unacceptable adverse impacts to the surrounding areas.
T. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City’s police powers and powers afforded to the City in time of national, state, county and local emergency during an Ordinance No. 465U
unprecedented health pandemic, such powers being afforded by the State Constitution, State law and section 2.52 of the Malibu Municipal Code to protect the peace, health, and safety of the public. The Malibu City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety of residents living within the City and financial stability of the local business community and finds urgency to approve this ordinance immediately based on the facts described herein and detailed in the staff report. Under Government Code Section 8634, this ordinance is necessary to provide for the protection of life and property.
SECTION 2. Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program.
A. Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit
1. During the period of local city emergency declared in response to COVID- 19, outdoor dining limitations, areas for dining service, seating arrangements, and previously approved operating conditions may be temporarily suspended or altered to allow restaurants to increase outdoor dining areas and physical distancing if authorized by a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit.
2. A Restaurant owner, shopping center or Restaurant property owner, or manager of any Restaurant or shopping center may apply for a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit that would allow the following (in the event of conflicting applications, the property owner’s application, if granted, shall be the operative application and permit):
a. Temporary use of Temporary Restaurant Seating Area to allow greater physical distancing;
b. Temporary changes to other approved operating conditions or restrictions to facilitate physical distancing.
B. Eligible Areas. “Temporary Restaurant Seating Area” means:
1. The following areas of the property that are not currently permitted for restaurant service use but may be safely be converted to seating for guests:
a. Indoor areas that are within the tenant space
b. Outdoor areas adjacent to the Restaurant use including parking spaces, but excluding areas where the use could negatively impact coastal resources or prevent coastal access
c. Common areas of shopping malls that are accessible from, and within 100 feet of, the subject Restaurant
2. Sidewalks and other public rights-of-way that are closed to public access during the period of service. A separate encroachment permit may be required for use of the public right-of-way;
Ordinance No. 465U
C. Permit Approval.
1. The Planning Director may issue a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit upon making the following findings:
a. Adverse impacts from any use authorized by the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit are minimal and not significant;
b. The resulting Restaurant use will not exceed the previously legally established or permitted use.
c. The use will include a maximum of seats that does not exceed the current number of authorized seats. City staff shall determine the number of authorized seats based on staff’s evaluation of existing permits, available parking, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) approval, the number of seats allowed in Restaurants with similar seating areas, and/or other available information;
d. Temporary Restaurant Seating Area fully complies with all California COVID- 19 Industry Guidance, California Department of Public Health and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health codes and requirements. A Temporary Catering Authorization from California Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) will be required for any business proposing to serve alcohol within a Temporary Restaurant Seating Area; e. The Restaurant and shopping center is not currently subject to open code enforcement action and is not in violation of any compliance agreement.
2. The Planning Director may impose any conditions required to prevent use of the Restaurant from exceeding the impacts and use of the Restaurant that existed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, modifying hours of operation of the Temporary Restaurant Seating Area, measures to limit noise impacts, measures to facilitate parking, drop-off , pickup, lighting restrictions, temporary protective barriers, circulation requirements for employees, customers, vehicles, health/safety measures, and restrictions on the locations and numbers of seats and tables inside and outside the Restaurant. The property owner shall agree to indemnify and defend the City in any action related to the issuance of the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit and/or the use allowed by the permit as a condition of receiving the permit.
D. Existing Operational Requirements and Termination.
1. The Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program does not relieve the applicant from any conditions of approval included in existing entitlements other than those which are directly addressed by the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit.
2. The Temporary Restaurant Seating Area must be vacated and returned to its original state within 72 hours of the termination of this ordinance or the Ordinance No. 465U
termination of the issued Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit. Use of the Temporary Restaurant Seating Area must cease immediately upon termination of this ordinance or a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit.
E. Violations
1. In addition to all other remedies, violations of a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program Permit or this ordinance are subject to the Administrative fine provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code located in Chapter 1.10 et. seq.
2. A Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit may be modified or terminated by the City for any of the following reasons:
a. Violation of any applicable law, rule, ordinance, or order; b. Disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of nearby residents; c. Objection by law enforcement agencies;
d. If operation of the Temporary Restaurant Seating Area is inconsistent with State or local public health directives, including physical distancing directives or guidance; or
e. If, in the discretion of the Planning Director, continuance of the activity permitted by the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit will negatively impact the public’s health, safety, or welfare.
3. Should a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit be modified or terminated per subsection (2) ofthis Section, the permit holder shall be provided notice of the reason for modification or termination by: (1) mailing notice to the address of the Restaurant, (2) delivering notice to the Restaurant manager or staff on duty at the Restaurant, or (3) mailing or delivering the notice to the permit holder or property owner. The permit holder may request reconsideration of the modification or termination by providing written evidence or argument to the City Clerk at cityclerk(à),malibucitv.org within five days of the mailing or delivery of the notice by the City, whichever is earlier in time. The permit holder must immediately comply with the modification or termination, except that if a request for consideration is timely delivered to the City the Temporary Restaurant Seating Area need not be returned to its original condition until 10 days after the date notice of the modification or termination was mailed or delivered by the City, whichever is earlier in time.
SECTION 3. In order to prevent inconsistencies, the Director ofEmergency Services may suspend the effectiveness of any provision in this ordinance in the event that the President of the United States, Congress, Governor ofthe State of California or California State Legislature or other body with jurisdiction adopts a similar order or legislation.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is found to be Ordinance No. 465U
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Environmental Review.
The City Council finds that adoption and implementation ofthis ordinance is categorically exempt per Section 15304(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines regarding minor temporary uses of land. The City Council also alternatively finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA as an administrative activity by the City of Malibu, in furtherance of its police power, that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, per sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as CEQA Guidelines section 15064(e) (economic regulations). Further, the City Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is categorically exempt per Section 15269 of the CEQA guidelines regarding emergency projects as this action is necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency by allowing for greater physical distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19.
SECTION 6. Urgency Declaration; Effective Date.
The City Council finds and declares that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation and protection of the public peace, health and safety as detailed above. Provision of outdoor seating areas protects public health by providing the ability to increase physical distance between patrons and prevents upheaval to the extent restaurants are forced to close and move out due to the financial impact of COVID-19 related impacts. During this local emergency, and in the interest of protecting the public health and preventing transmission of COVID- 19, it is essential to support the local business community with flexible processes, policies, and programs in order to help businesses keep their doors open in a safer manner and in compliance with the advice and directives of public health officials to their fullest extent. Under Government Code Section 8634 and Malibu Municipal Code section 2.52, this ordinance is necessary to provide for the protection of life and property for the reasons set out herein. The Council therefore finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and protection of life and property, require that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 36937 and take effect immediately upon adoption by four-fifths of the City Council.
SECTION 7. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption ofthis ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2020.
KAREN FARRER, Mayor
Ordinance No. 465U
ATTEST:
cJ~i
H~AT~R
~
Gt~A~R, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: ________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ I .? 1 —~
v ~ ~ç~J~V
CHRJSTI HOGIN, ~ity Attorney
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE NO. 465U was passed and adopted at the Regular City Council meeting of June 8, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: 5 Councilmembers: Mullen, Peak, Wagner, Pierson, Farrer NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
HE~THER GLASE~~jtiI~ Clerk
(seal)
ORDINANCE NO. 498U
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU AMENDING
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 465U SO THAT THE TERM TO VACATE
TEMPORARY RESTAURANT SEATING AREAS IS INCREASED TO 90
DAYS FROM WHEN THE URGENCY ORDINANCE IS TERMINATED,
FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY
The City Council of the Malibu does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose and Findings.
A. On June 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 465U, establishing the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program. Ordinance No. 465U allows local restaurants to obtain a permit to temporarily create outdoor seating areas adjacent to common areas, including parking lots or sidewalks.
B. Ordinance No. 465U is temporary in nature and only intended to promote health, safety, stability and expeditious recovery within the local business community in the City during the COVID- 19 pandemic outbreak, and to prevent avoidable business closures, thereby serving the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare.
C. As of January 26, 2022, the County of Los Angeles Public Health Order, issued on September 28, 2021, remains in effect. The Order provides specific guidelines for nightclubs, lounges, breweries, wineries, and distilleries which states that establishments must verify that 1) all indoor patrons ages 12 and over are fully vaccinated before they are permitted entry to be seated or served or to take part in any activities in the indoor portions of the venue and 2) all on-site employees are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As for restaurants and other food facilities, the Public Health Officer strongly recommends that operators reserve and prioritize indoor seating for patrons, 12 years of age or older, that are fully vaccinated, and for patrons that cannot provide proof offull vaccination those patrons should utilize outdoor seating. The County Health Order, issued on December 16, 2021, provides further guidance for Indoor and Outdoor Mega Events and reinforces the use of face coverings, among other things, however, it does not affect current guidelines for food and beverage establishments.
D. In the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to exercise authority to adopt this ordinance related to the protection of life and property, to support the financial recovery of the local food service business community, and provide space for community residents and visitors to safely dine-out. During the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, capacity limitations and/or physical distancing requirements have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on businesses~ ability to operate.
Ordinance No. 498U
E. On January 10, 2022, City staff provided an update on the Temporary Restaurant Recovery Program to the City Council and directed staff to amend to Ordinance No. 465U the temporary outdoor seating areas to be removed within 90 days to allow adequate time for restaurant operators to return sites to its original state. This modification will provide for more certainty in the temporary restaurant recovery program by providing restaurants a more reasonable amount of time to return the sites to their original states. This may result in more restaurants opting into the program and existing restaurants with outdoor seating areas investing more into their outdoor seating areas making them more attractive and convenient for patrons.
F. Providing ample time to remove these temporary outdoor seating areas will promote stability and financial recovery amongst City restaurants and create an environment where City restaurants can create more attractive outdoor seating areas making it more likely patrons will avail themselves to these outdoor eating areas which can possibly aid in the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
G. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City’s police powers and powers afforded to the City in time of national, state, county and local emergency during an unprecedented health pandemic, such powers being afforded by the State Constitution, State law and Section 2.52 of the Malibu Municipal Code to protect the peace, health, and safety of the public. The Malibu City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety of residents living within the City and financial stability of the local business community and finds urgency to approve this ordinance immediately based on the facts described herein and detailed in the staff report. Under Government Code Section 8634, this ordinance is necessary to provide for the protection of life and property.
SECTION 2. Amendment to Ordinance No. 465U
Ordinance No. 465U Section 2, Subsection D(1) shall be amended to read as follows:
D. Existing Operational Requirements and Termination.
1. The Temporary Restaurant Seating Area must be vacated and returned to its original state within ninety (90) days ofthe termination ofthis ordinance or the termination of the issued Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit. Use of the Temporary Restaurant Seating Area must cease immediately upon termination of this ordinance or a Temporary Restaurant Recovery Permit.
SECTION 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. 498U
SECTION 4. Environmental Review.
The City Council finds that adoption and implementation ofthis ordinance is categorically exempt per Section 15304(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines regarding minor temporary uses of land. The City Council also alternatively finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA as an administrative activity by the City of Malibu, in furtherance of its police power, that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, per sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as CEQA Guidelines section 15064(e) (economic regulations). Further, the City Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is categorically exempt per Section 15269 of the CEQA guidelines regarding emergency projects as this action is necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency by allowing for greater physical distancing to limit the spread of COVID-1 9.
SECTION 5. Urgency Declaration; Effective Date.
The City Council finds and declares that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation and protection of the public peace, health and safety as detailed above. Provision of outdoor seating areas protects public health by providing the ability to increase physical distance between patrons and prevents upheaval to the extent restaurants are forced to close and move out due to the financial impact of COVID- 19 related impacts. During this local emergency, and in the interest of protecting the public health and preventing transmission of COVID- 19, it is essential to support the local business community with flexible processes, policies, and programs in order to help businesses keep their doors open in a safer manner and in compliance with the advice and directives of public health officials to their fullest extent. Under Government Code Section 8634 and Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52, this ordinance is necessary to provide for the protection of life and property for the reasons set out herein. The Council therefore finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and protection of life and property, require that this Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 36937 and take effect immediately upon adoption by four-fifths of the City Council.
SECTION 6. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption ofthis ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February 2022. 1-~
PAUL GRJ$ANTI, Mayor
Ordinance No. 498U
KELSEY ~ETTIJdRN, City Clerk
(seal)~
2 ~-~‘ i~ ~
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/‘L (~(
JOHN COTTI, Interim City Attorney
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE NO. 498U was passed and adopted at the Regular City Council meeting of February 14, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: 4 Councilmembers: Farrer, Pierson, Silverstein, Grisanti NOES: 1 Councilmember: Uhring
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
K LSEY FE1~ JOh~ , City Clerk
(seal)
ATTEST:
Agenda Item # 7.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Mary Linden, Executive Assistant
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: February 22, 2023 Meeting date: March 13, 2023 Subject: Recommended Alternate Appointment to Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide a recommendation to the Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments (COG) for appointment as the COG’s Alternate to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) Governing Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
WORK PLAN: This item was not included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. This project is part of normal staff operations.
DISCUSSION: SMBRC is a non-regulatory, locally based State entity established by the California Legislature in 2002 to monitor, assess, coordinate, and advise the activities of State programs and oversee funding that affects the beneficial uses, restoration and enhancement of Santa Monica Bay and its watersheds. The SMBRC Governing Board, its key decision-making authority, is made up of officials and staff from watershed cities, regulators, and legislators, with seven elected representatives of environmental interests, business communities, and public agencies and private organizations.
One voting position on the Governing Board is appointed by the COG to represent the Malibu Watershed cities. The COG has traditionally deferred to the City of Malibu for its appointment to the Governing Board and has appointed Mayor Pro Tem Uhring as the current voting member. The City Council is asked to provide a recommendation to the COG for appointment as Mayor Pro Tem Uhring’s alternate should he be unavailable to fulfill those duties at any time.
ATTACHMENTS: SMBRC Governing Board Members (as of January 2023) City Council Meeting
03-13-23
Item
7.A.
SANTA MONICA BAY RESTORATION COMMISSION
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
as of January 2023
VOTING MEMBERS
Last Name First Name Affiliation
Bass Karen City of Los Angeles
Bishop Jonathan State Water Resources Control Board
Bonham Chuck California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Brand Bill South Bay Cities (City of Redondo Beach)
Caspary Charles Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Crowfoot Wade California Natural Resources Agency
Edmiston Joe Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Ferrante Robert Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Garcia Yana California Environmental Protection Agency
VACANT VACANT At-Large Representative
Gray Gloria At-Large Representative
(West Basin Municipal Water District)
Horvath Lindsey LA County Board of Supervisors (3rd District) Jones Gary Los Angeles County Department of Beaches & Harbors Kerns Misti Coastal Tourism Industry (Santa Monica Travel & Tourism) McMorrin Yasmine-Imani Ballona Creek Watershed Cities (City of Culver City) Murphy Dan Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lifeguard Division Notthoff Ann State Coastal Conservancy
Park Traci Los Angeles City Council District 11
Pease Katherine Environmental/Public Interest (Heal the Bay) Pestrella Mark Los Angeles County Public Works
2 Last Name First Name Affiliation
Quintero Armando California Department of Parks and Recreation Reznik Bruce Environmental/Public Interest (LA Waterkeeper) Romero Barbara Public Works Department, City of LA
(LA Sanitation & Environment)
Stahl James California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles
Stevens Clark At-Large Representative (Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains)
Uhring Steven Malibu Watershed Cities (City of Malibu)
Uranga Roberto California Coastal Commission
Wilson Jeff Business/Economic Interest (Chevron)
NON-VOTING MEMBERS
Last Name First Name Affiliation
Allen Ben State Senate 26th District **
VACANT VACANT State Assembly 50th District **
Chesney Bryant NOAA-NMFS Southwest Division
Ford Tom Santa Monica Bay NEP Director
Guzman Martha US EPA Region 9
McKinnor Tina State Assembly 62nd District **
Muratsuchi Al State Assembly 66th District
Newman Laurie The Bay Foundation
Pondella Dan Technical Advisory Committee
Stern Henry State Senate 27th District **
** Pending updates based on final California redistricting maps that took effect with the 2022 elections.