Cities Index.
Agenda packet, first session

Malibu City Council
May 22, 2023

Document
Agenda packet, first session
Meeting
May 22, 2023
Body
Malibu City Council
Pages
35
Original file
92.0 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on www.malibucity.org. That file is the official record.

CITY OF MALIBU

DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DIVISION
Class Description
March 2023
FLSA: Exempt

DEFINITION
Under general direction, plans, organizes, manages, and directs the activities for the Maintenance and Operations Division within the Public Works Department, supervises technical staff and subordinate personnel in the planning and implementation of division functions including streets, storm drainage, wastewater and stormwater treatment plants, and traffic signals; organizes and manages the construction management of City projects, assists in coordinating assigned activities with other City departments, divisions, outside agencies, and the public; fosters cooperative working relationships among City departments, divisions, and with intergovernmental and regulatory agencies and various public and private groups; provides highly responsible and complex professional assistance to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in areas of expertise; and performs related work as required.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
General supervision is provided by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Technical or functional supervision may be received from the Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer. Direct and indirect supervision of supervisory, technical and office personnel assigned to the Public Works Maintenance and Operations Division.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
This is a mid-management classification in the Public Works Department. The incumbent oversees, directs, and participates in the operations, maintenance, and repair of the City’s streets, storm drainage, wastewater and stormwater treatment plants, and traffic signals, including development and implementation of short- and long-term repair and replacement capital projects, administration and compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the operation wastewater, recycled water, streets and drainage systems, and provides professional-level support to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in a variety of areas. Successful performance of the work requires an extensive professional background in Public Works construction as well as skill in coordinating construction management activities for City projects. Responsibilities include performing and directing many of the department’s day-to-day administrative functions. This class is distinguished from the Public Works Director/City Engineer in that the latter has overall management responsibility for all public works programs, functions, and activities, and for developing, implementing, and interpreting public policy. An incumbent allocated to this job class must possess exceptional organizational and communication skills as well as extensive knowledge related to the operation, maintenance, and construction programs necessary to support the Public Works Department.

EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.
• Collaborates with the Director and assists in the planning, organization, and direction of activities of operation and maintenance functions within the Department of Public Works.

ATTACHMENT 2
Deputy Public Works Director
Maintenance and Operations Division

Page 2 ends

• Assumes management responsibility for all operations and maintenance functions and activities of the City’s infrastructure and facilities, including streets, traffic signals, storm drains and drainage systems, wastewater collection system, wastewater and stormwater treatment plant, and recycled water treatment and distribution system operation, maintenance, and repair.
• Assumes management responsibility for Public Works vehicle fleet maintenance, and vehicle replacement.
• Participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for assigned service areas, programs, and operations; recommends and administers policies and procedures.
• Monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures; recommends, within division and departmental policy, appropriate service, and staffing levels.
• Assists the Director in planning, organizing, and directing the Department in the fiscal and administrative activities of the assigned divisions of the Public Works Department. • Assists the Director in the development and administration of the annual budget; forecasts funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies; monitors and approves expenditures; makes adjustments.
• Assists the Director in planning, organization, and direction of the Department in construction, maintenance, and repair of City-owned and operated facilities. • Prepares agenda items and makes public presentations to the City Council, Public Works and Public Safety Commissions, and other advisory committees administered by the Department.
• Assists with the preparation of operating and capital improvement budgets and control of expenditures, including the preparation of long-term maintenance management models.
• Supervises and assists subordinate supervisors in the operations and maintenance of City infrastructure, particularly streets, traffic, wastewater, and storm drainage systems; establish long-range plans and goals.
• Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned personnel; provides or coordinates staff training; works with employees on performance issues; responds to staff questions and concerns; makes disciplinary action recommendations to the Director. • Coordinates Departmental activities with other department staff and outside agencies and organizations; provides staff assistance to the Public Works Director/City Engineer; prepares and presents staff reports and other necessary correspondence. • Participates in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning activities; provides input into the conceptual design of engineering projects; manages the construction management and inspection activities related to CIP projects.
• Meets and confers with contractors, engineers, a variety of outside agencies, and the general public in acquiring information and coordinating matters related to the City’s streets, traffic signals, storm drainage, wastewater collection system, recycled water distribution system, wastewater and stormwater treatment plants, and related facilities. • May serve as acting Director in the absence of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. • Performs related tasks as required.

QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
• Organizational and management practices as applied to analysis and evaluation of departmental programs, policies, procedures, organizational structure, and operational needs.
• Principles of project planning, development, coordination, and direction for operations functions and services.

Deputy Public Works Director
Maintenance and Operations Division

Page 3 ends

• Principles and practices of municipal budget preparation, monitoring, and administration. • Principles, practices, equipment, and methods used in public works maintenance, construction, and operations work.
• Federal, state, and local laws specifications, rules, and regulations relating to the functions and operations of the department.
• General knowledge of principles and practices of management necessary to plan, analyze, develop, evaluate, and direct the diverse and complex activities of major departmental programs, including organizing, budgeting, staff development, and supervision. • Principles, practices, methods and techniques of public administration and management; federal, state, local laws specifications, and rules and regulations relating to construction and maintenance of public works facilities.
• Principles and practices utilized in the planning and construction of major capital improvement projects.
• Principles, practices, methods and techniques of public administration and management. • Operations, plans, policies, procedures, rules, and regulations common to local government.
• Principles of supervision, training, management, and public works administration. • Principles of budget preparation and expenditure control. • Principles and practices of public administration labor relations and public personnel management.
• Principles and practices as applied to the field of operating and maintaining the city infrastructure.
• Technical, legal, and financial issues related to the conduct of municipal public works program.
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitting and compliance. • Methods of preparing designs, plans, specifications, estimates, reports, and recommendations relating to proposed public works projects. • Procedures, materials, equipment, and methods used in all areas of public works activities. • Administrative principles and practices, including goal setting, program development, implementation, and evaluation, and supervision of staff. • Public agency budgetary, contract administration, administrative practices, and general principles of risk management related to the functions of the assigned area. • Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of projects, programs, policies, procedures, and operational needs; principles and practices of municipal government administration.
• Principles and practices of public works program development, maintenance, and management in a municipal setting.
• Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.
• Principles and practices of employee supervision, including work planning, assignment, review and evaluation, and the training of staff in work procedures.

Skill in:
• Interpreting and applying various state statutes, ordinances, and codes that pertain to public work functions to ensure that activities are carried out in accordance with the law. • Planning, organizing, and directing the budget, construction, and maintenance of public works projects. Interpreting and applying pertinent laws, rules, and regulations. • Evaluating divisional policy and program practices, defining problem areas, developing, and directing the implementation of policy decisions and practices to improve divisional operations.
• Overseeing and coordinating the activities of a number of sections within the Department. • Assisting with the preparation of departmental operating and capital improvement budgets and control budget expenditures.

Deputy Public Works Director
Maintenance and Operations Division

Page 4 ends

• Reviewing and interpreting cost estimates.
• Performing a variety of technical research and preparing reports of findings. • Record keeping principles and procedures.

Ability to:
• Direct, control, and evaluate a group of subordinates and maintain consistency with program objectives and standards of the department.
• Initiate, plan, organize, evaluate, and coordinate work assignments with a minimum of direction and control.
• Prepare and enforce department procedures relating to personnel, training, budget, and organization.
• Understand and interpret to others the aims, concepts, principles, and practices of public works engineering and the operations.
• Communicate and interact with personnel at all organizational levels. • Instruct, persuade, negotiate, and motivate individuals with diverse backgrounds and business interests.
• Effectively represent the Department before the Council, Council Committees, boards, commissions, public agencies, and private groups.
• Prepare clear and concise written reports and develop appropriate recommendations. • Effectively manage assigned areas of the departmental program. • Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted during the course of work.
• Manage a large staff of field, office, professional and technical staff.

Education and Experience:

Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:

Education: A bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with a major in civil engineering, business or public administration, or a closely related field.

Substitution: Additional qualifying experience may be substituted for the education on a year-foryear basis.

Experience: At least eight (8) years of progressively responsible work experience performing a variety of public works construction, mechanics, and/or infrastructure repair and maintenance to include at least five (5) years of supervisory and/or management responsibilities.

License:

Must possess and maintain a valid California class C driver license and have a satisfactory driving record.

Deputy Public Works Director
Maintenance and Operations Division

Page 5 ends

PHYSICAL DEMANDS
Position requires sitting, standing, walking on level and slippery surfaces, reaching, twisting, turning, bending, stooping, crouching, grasping, and making repetitive hand movement in the performance of daily duties. The position also requires both near and far vision when inspecting work and operating assigned equipment. The need to lift, carry, and push tools, equipment, and supplies weighing 25 pounds or more is also required. Additionally, the incumbent may work outdoors in all weather conditions, including wet, hot, and cold. The incumbent may use cleaning and lubricating chemicals, which may expose the employee to fumes, dust, and air contaminants, and may be exposed to mechanical hazards. The nature of the work may also require the incumbent to drive motorized vehicles, work in heavy vehicle traffic conditions, and often work with constant interruptions. The incumbent may be required to respond to after-hours emergency call outs and perform routine standby duties.

Some of these requirements may be accommodated for otherwise qualified individuals requiring and requesting such accommodations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.

Engineering Technician

Page 1 ends

CITY OF MALIBU

ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
Class Description
April 2023
FLSA: Non-Exempt

DEFINITION
Under direct supervision, performs a variety of technical paraprofessional and support related activities in the Public Works Department; maintains project files and engineering records; conducts field surveys and minor inspections; prepares engineering related exhibits using specialized software and maintains related databases; receives and reviews a variety of City permits for completeness; researches engineering topics and prepares reports; performs engineering calculations; provides technical information to the public; and performs a variety of technical tasks related to an assigned area of responsibility.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
General supervision is provided by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Technical or functional supervision may be received from the Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer and the Deputy Public Works Director.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
This classification performs a variety of civil engineering tasks and duties in support of the Public Works Department which requires the application of fundamental engineering knowledge, skills, and abilities. The work has technical aspects, requiring the interpretation and application of policies, procedures and regulations and involves frequent contact with the public.

EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.
• Assists in the preparation/distribution of engineering plans and specifications; coordinates required advertising for bids, reviews construction bids, and makes recommendations based on review of bids, competency of vendors and selection criteria. • Assists in the review of private development plans for compliance with codes regulations and standards; assesses adequacy of applications for permits, determines completeness of submittals and recommends conditions of approval.
• Performs basic design and drafting duties in connection with streets, storm drains, traffic engineering and other projects.
• Reviews applications for encroachment, transportation, street vendors, special events and other Public Works related permits and may issue routine permits. • Researches and provides technical assistance and information to the public and responds to inquiries from contractors, developers, property owners, staff, and the general public. • Creates engineering exhibits using specialized software. • Organizes and compiles data and maintains computer databases. • Organizes, maintains, and updates department records, tracking lists, permit records and engineering plans.
• Calculates the amount of fees, and deposits necessary to issue related development permits, processes/maintains bonds for acceptance/release, and tracks deposit amounts.

Engineering Technician

Page 2 ends

• Performs engineering records research on a variety of topics, such as right of way, easements, and property ownership.
• Assists in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates pertaining to the construction, maintenance, operation of a variety of engineering, land development and capital improvement projects.
• Performs basic design and drafting duties in connection with streets, storm drains, utilities, and other projects; prepares exhibits using computer aided design software. • Assists in interagency coordination such as securing encroachment permits from other agencies.
• Performs field inspectionsrelated to permits, capital improvement projects, and maintenance items including signs, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters and other public improvement condition assessments.
• Responds to inquiries from developers, contractors, and the general public regarding City requirements relative to the construction, alteration, and maintenance of public works facilities.
• Utilizes GIS applications to develop and maintain asset management system data collection and work management and inventory reporting.
• Performs related tasks as required.

QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
• Civil Engineering principles and practices in a municipal setting. • Basic design and construction practices of streets, underground facilities, and related public works infrastructure.
• Drafting, surveying techniques and practices.
• Engineering plans, maps, legal descriptions, title reports, local codes, and ordinances. • Engineering mathematics, geometry, and trigonometry.
• General knowledge of Caltrans Traffic and Design manuals, the MUTCD, and Watch handbook.
• Engineering plan types, review practices, and permit filings and approval procedures. • Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations. • Principles and practices of record keeping.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and computer equipment including personal hardware/software (Word, Excel, Access, etc., AutoCAD, GIS, and other specialized engineering software).
• Technical report writing practices/procedures.
• Techniques for providing a high level of customer services by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff.
• English usage, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation.

Skill in:
• Preparing a variety of plans, specifications, maps, cost estimates, and technical engineering reports.
• Preparing and updating maps and engineering documents related to City infrastructure. • Organizing, filing, and maintaining engineering records. • Making and recording accurate field engineering observations. • Preparing clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, and other written materials.
• Organizing and prioritizing tasks to meet deadlines.
• Accurately performing moderately complex mathematical calculations. • Communicating clearly and concisely, both oral, and in writing.

Engineering Technician

Page 3 ends

• Using tact, initiative, and appropriate judgment within established policy, procedural and legal guidelines.

Ability to:
• Read, interpret, understand, and prepare engineering plans, specifications, and subdivision maps.
• Perform responsible technical engineering support work with accuracy with established timeframes.
• Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of duty.
• Follow oral and written instructions.
• Communicate complex technical information, orally, and in writing to contractors, developers, property owners, employees, consultants, other government agency representatives, City officials and the general public. • Operate a personal computer, use productivity and specialized engineering software, including spreadsheets, GIS, and AutoCAD.

Education and Experience:

Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:

Equivalent to graduation from high school. College level coursework in engineering or a related field is desirable. Three (3) years of experience of previous experience in civil engineering, construction, or related industries. Experience in dealing with the public and working in a public agency setting is desirable.

License:

Must possess and maintain a valid California class C driver license and have a satisfactory driving record.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to inspect various City infrastructure and development sites, including climbing ladders, stairs and other temporary or construction access points, attend meetings and to operate a motor vehicle; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen and make inspections; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups and over the telephone. The job may involve field inspection work requiring frequent walking to inspection site areas to monitor performance and to identify problems or hazards. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment.

Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, climb, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Positions in this classification occasionally lift, move, and carry objects that typically weigh up to 40 pounds.

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.

Engineering Technician

Page 4 ends

WORKING CONDITIONS
May be required to work on evenings, weekends, and holidays. Participates in an after-hours emergency response program for on-call and callback assignments.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Brandie Ayala, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: April 26, 2023 Meeting date: May 22, 2023 Subject: Assessment District 98-1 (Big Rock Mesa)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-22 levying an assessment for the maintenance, repair, and improvements works, systems and facilities pertaining to Assessment District 98-1 (Big Rock Mesa) for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. All revenues and expenditures are recorded in the Big Rock Mesa Landslide Maintenance District Fund 290. The total District levy for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 is $356,470.90 for continued operation, maintenance and capital improvements, with each Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) assessed at $504.85. As the average single-family home has two BAUs the annual assessment will be $1,009.69 per household (see Table IV-1 on page 5 of Assessment Engineer’s Report – Attachment 1). The maximum allowable assessment amount of $1,009.69 for two BAUs, which includes an allowed annual increase set by the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 5%. The annual assessment for FY 2023-24 is an increase of $35.56 (per household) over the FY 2022-23 assessment of $974.13, an increase of 3.65%.

WORK PLAN: This item was included as item 8.i in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-

23. DISCUSSION: The City administers the Big Rock Mesa Landslide Assessment District on behalf of the District’s homeowners. The District was originally established by Los Angeles County as County Improvement District No. 2629R2 following the major landslide during the winter storms in 1983, with the purpose of improving the stability of the City Council Meeting
05-22-23
Item

4.B.
1

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.B.
landslide. As a result of the “El Nino” storms in 1998 and landslide movement, the City Council formed Assessment District 98-1 (Big Rock Mesa) pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. This District was formed to construct new dewatering and monitoring facilities in the eastern mesa area and to take over maintenance of the entire dewatering system, replacing the maintenance function of the Los Angeles County assessment district.

Yeh & Associates, Inc., under contract with the City of Malibu, monitors and maintains the District facilities that include 24 dewatering wells, 36 hydraugers, and numerous slope inclinometers and standpipe piezometers. The dewatering wells and hydraugers lower the groundwater level in the landslide area, thereby improving the stability of the hillside.

Readings from the hydraugers are recorded on a monthly basis. The volume of the groundwater is recorded from the dewatering wells on a monthly basis. Ground water levels are measured within the inclinometers/standpipe piezometers on a monthly basis.

Monitoring of subsurface land movement is done using slope inclinometers, drilled into the ground to depths up to 400 ft. The inclinometers are recorded on a quarterly to annual basis. In addition, the quality of the water extracted is monitored on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Districts’ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

For the upcoming fiscal year, anticipated work budgeted includes NPDES water quality monitoring, recording discharge from dewatering wells and hydraugers, slope inclinometer surveys, crack and ground surface monitoring, groundwater level monitoring, performing maintenance to dewatering wells, hydraugers, collection piping, and equipment, and data management, administration, and reporting. Proposed capital improvement projects being coordinated for the next year include replacing an existing inclinometer.

Both the Annual Assessment District report and the Annual Maintenance District reports are posted on the City’s website. In May 2023, a letter was sent to all property owners in the district advising them of the availability of these reports (Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 23-22

2. Letter sent to property owners on availability of annual reports

3. Notice of Public Hearing
2 ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU LEVYING

AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS, SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-1 (BIG ROCK MESA) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. The City Council of the City of Malibu, State of California, did on May 11, 1998, adopt its resolution of intention, Resolution No. 98-030, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 10000) (the "1913 Act") and the alternative proceedings under the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, Part 7.5 of Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 2960), for the reconstruction and annual maintenance of certain public improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith (collectively, the "Improvements"), in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 98-1 (Big Rock Mesa) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").

B. Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-030 declared the Council’s intention to levy an assessment to maintain, repair or improve the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.

C. On June 29, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-049 confirming assessments and ordering improvements made for Assessment District No. 98-1.

D. The City Council proposes to levy an assessment for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-030.

E. The City Clerk fixed a time and place for a public hearing relating to the proposed assessment.

F. At the time set for the public hearing, all comments, objections and protests were duly heard and considered.

G. All evidence, both oral and written, relative to the necessity for the proposed assessment was heard and considered.

H. The City Council is now satisfied as to the proposed assessment.

I. The City Council previously designated the City Engineer to perform the duties of the Superintendent of Streets for purposes of the proceedings in connection with the annual levy of assessments for the maintenance and repair or improvement of the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.
3 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 2 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 2. The Annual Assessment Report for Assessment District No. 98-1, City of Malibu, Big Rock Mesa, dated May 22, 2023 (Attachment A) is hereby accepted.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the estimate of expenditures for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as shown on Exhibit A of the Annual Assessment Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby determines to levy and collect a special assessment in the amount of the estimate of expenditures contained in Exhibit B of the Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such special assessment to provide for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

SECTION 4. The apportionment and the method of spread of the special assessment, as shown in Exhibit C of the Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted as being a correct and proper apportionment, the assessment having been spread in accordance with benefits to be received.

SECTION 5. The assessments set forth in Exhibit B of the Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby confirmed and the City Council hereby determines that the assessments as set forth in Exhibit B shall be levied, collected and enforced at the same time, in the same manner, by the same officers, and with the same interest and penalties as in the case of the assessment levied to pay for the Improvements.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby finds that, due to the marginal stability of the Big Rock area and the nature of the Big Rock Mesa landslide mitigation system and facilities, the approved maintenance, repair and improvement expenses have to be incurred in order to maintain the level of benefit to the assessed parcels. The City Council further finds that the level of benefit derived from the Improvements would otherwise decline more rapidly than usual for other public works of the type involved because of the circumstances which do not ordinarily affect such public works, to wit, geologic instability.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds that notice of the time and place of the public hearing regarding the proposed assessment has been given as required by law.

SECTION 8. A special fund was established to be maintained and administered in accordance with the provisions of Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act, into which all payments received upon the assessment shall be deposited.

SECTION 9. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as may, in the view of such officers, be necessary or appropriate to implement the matters contemplated by this Resolution and the other documents and instruments related thereto.

SECTION 10. The levy of the proposed assessment is for the maintenance, repair or minor alteration of existing facilities to provide landslide mitigation services. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the assessment and this Resolution have no significant effect on the environment for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The assessment and this Resolution are therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15061 (b) (3) and Section 15301.
4 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 3 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 11. 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 22nd day of May 2023. _____________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
5 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 4 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT A
6 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 5 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
7 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 6 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
8 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 7 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
9 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 8 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
10 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 9 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
11 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 10 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
12 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 11 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
13 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 12 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
14 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 13 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
15 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 14 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
16 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 15 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
17 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 16 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
18 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 17 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
19 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 18 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
20 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 19 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
21 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 20 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
22 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 21 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
23 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 22 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
24 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 23 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
25 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 24 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
26 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 25 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
27 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 26 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
28 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 27 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
29 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 28 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
30 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 29 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
31 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 30 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
32 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 31 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
33 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 32 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
34 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 33 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
35 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 34 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
36 Resolution No. 23-22

Page 35 of 35 ends

_____________________
ATTACHMENT 1
37 May 1, 2023
«Owner_Name»
«Mail_Address_Final»
«Mail_City_Final», «Mail_State_Final», «Map_Zip_Final»
«Special_Name»
Re: Internet Access to Annual Reports --Assessment District No. 98-1 Assessment No.: «Assessment_Number» Assessor's Parcel No.: «APN» Situs Address: «Situs_Address»
Dear Property Owner:

The City of Malibu will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2023 to hear comments and consider a resolution levying assessments for the maintenance, repair and improvements of works, systems and facilities for Assessment District No. 98-1 (Big Rock Mesa). The geologist's annual report for the previous fiscal year, which is entitled "FY21/22 Maintenance and Monitoring AD98-1, Big Rock Mesa," is posted on the City of Malibu's website. The report presents detailed discussions on the status of the district and maintenance and monitoring activitiesfor the past fiscal year.

In addition, the fiscal year 2023-24 annual assessment report for the assessment district, which is entitled "City of Malibu Assessment District No. 98-01 Big Rock Mesa Annual Administration Report FY 2023-2024," can be found in the City Council agenda package for the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff anticipates that this year's assessments will increase by 3.65%, which is equal to the annual change in the CPI (March 2023), as specified in the annual assessment report. Please follow the steps below to access the reports.

PRIOR YEAR GEOLOGIST AND

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
FY 2023-24

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on Public Works(left side of page)

4. Click on Assessment Districts(left side of page)

5. Click on the Big Rock Mesa. Within the district's
homepage, click on Annual Assessment Reports or
Geologist's Annual Report.

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on City Council (left side of page)

4. Click on Agendas & Minutes(left side of page)

5. Click on the View Recent Agendas and Minutes.

6. Click on the May 22, 2023 Regular Meeting link.

Locate the Big Rock Mesa agenda item and
download the agenda item PDF file.

If you would like additional information, please contact Brandie Ayala at (310) 456-2489 ext. 352 Sincerely yours,
Mitch Mosesman
30 Three Sixty Public Finance, Inc.
for
Rob DuBoux
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City ofMalibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road ♦ Malibu, California ♦ 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 ♦ Fax (310) 317-0950 ♦www.malibucity.org ATTACHMENT 2
38 ATTACHMENT 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The City of Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, May 22, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the item listed below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, and via teleconference.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR COMMENTS AND CONSIDER

RESOLUTION LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS,
SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Assessment District No. 98-1 (Big Rock)
Written objections or comments regarding the Assessment Districts may be submitted to the City Clerk by email to [email protected] between now and Monday, May 22, 2023. If you are unable to submit your objections by email please contact the City Clerk at (310) 456-2489, ext. 228 to make alternative arrangements. All written objections or comments must be received prior to the opening of the public hearing.

A copy of all relevant material, including resolutions, staff reports, and Engineer's Reports, are on file and available by request. Requests or questions about this notice should be directed to Public Works Director Robert DuBoux at (310) 456-2489 ext. 339 or [email protected].

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN

THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director
Publish Date: May 11 and May 18, 2023
39

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.C.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Brandie Ayala, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: May 3, 2023 Meeting date: May 22, 2023
Subject: Assessment District 98-3 (Malibu Road)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-23 levying an assessment for the maintenance, repair and improvements works, systems and facilities of Assessment District 98-3 (Malibu Road) for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. All revenues and expenditures are recorded in Malibu Road Landslide Maintenance District Fund 292. The total District levy for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 is $64,632.94 for continued maintenance and improvements, with each Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) per single family household assessed at $646.33 (see Table IV-1 on page 5 of Assessment Engineer’s Report – Attachment 1). The maximum allowable assessment amount is $646.33 per BAU, which includes an allowed annual increase set by the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 5%. The annual assessment of $1,292.66 and $646.33 per Zone A and Zone B household, respectively for FY 2023-24 is an increase of $45.52 and $22.76 per Zone A and Zone B household, respectively, over the 2022-2023 assessment of $1,247.14 and $623.57 per Zone A and Zone B household, respectively. The proposed increase is 3.65% per BAU for FY 2022-23.

WORK PLAN: This item was included as item 8.i in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-

23. DISCUSSION: The City administers the Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District on behalf of the District’s homeowners. The District was originally established by Los Angeles County as County Service Area No. 2 with the purpose of improving the stability of the City Council Meeting
05-22-23
Item

4.C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.C.
landslide activated by the heavy winter storms in 1977-1978. As a result of the “El Nino” storms in 1998 and landslide movement, the City Council formed Assessment District 98- 3 (Malibu Road) pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. This District was formed to construct new dewatering facilities and also to take over maintenance of the entire dewatering system, replacing the maintenance function of the original Los Angeles County assessment district.

Yeh & Associates, Inc., under contract with the City of Malibu, monitors and maintains the District facilities that include 14 dewatering wells, 19 hydraugers, and numerous slope inclinometers and standpipe piezometers. The dewatering wells and hydraugers lower the groundwater level in the landslide area, thereby improving the stability of the hillside.

Readings from the hydraugers are recorded on a monthly basis. Discharge volume is recorded from the dewatering wells on a monthly basis. Water levels are measured within the inclinometers/standpipe piezometers on a monthly basis. Monitoring of subsurface land movement is done using slope inclinometers, drilled into the ground to depths up to 80 ft. The inclinometers are recorded on a quarterly to annual basis.

For the upcoming fiscal year, anticipate work budgeted includes recording discharge from dewatering wells and hydraugers, slope inclinometer surveys, crack and ground surface monitoring, groundwater level monitoring, performing maintenance to dewatering wells, hydraugers, collection piping, and equipment and data management, administration, and reporting. Proposed capital improvement projects being coordinated for the next year includes aerial survey and design for surface drainage improvements.

Both the Annual Assessment District report and the Annual Maintenance District reports are posted on the City’s website. In May 2023, a letter was sent to all property owners in the district advising them of the availability of these reports (Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 23-23

2. Letter sent to property owners on availability of annual reports

3. Notice of Public Hearing
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND

IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS, SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-3 (MALIBU ROAD) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. The City Council of the City of Malibu, State of California, did on May 11, 1998, adopt its resolution of intention, Resolution No. 98-036, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 10000) (the "1913 Act") and the alternative proceedings under the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, Part 7.5 of Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 2960), for the reconstruction and annual maintenance of certain public improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith (collectively, the "Improvements"), in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 98-3 (Malibu Road) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").

B. Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-036 declared the Council’s intention to levy an assessment to maintain, repair or improve the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.

C. On June 29, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-053 confirming assessments and ordering improvements made for Assessment District No. 98-3.

D. The City Council proposes to levy an assessment for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-036.

E. The City Clerk fixed a time and place for a public hearing relating to the proposed assessment.

F. At the time set for the public hearing, all comments, objections and protests were duly heard and considered.

G. All evidence, both oral and written, relative to the necessity for the proposed assessment was heard and considered.

H. The City Council is now satisfied as to the proposed assessment.

I. The City Council previously designated the City Engineer to perform the duties of the Superintendent of Streets for purposes of the proceedings in connection with the annual levy of assessments for the maintenance and repair or improvement of the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.

Resolution No. 23-23

Page 2 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 2. The Annual Assessment Report for Assessment District No. 98-3, City of Malibu, Malibu Road, dated May 22, 2023 (Attachment A) is hereby accepted.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the estimate of expenditures for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as shown on Exhibit A of the Annual Assessment Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby determines to levy and collect a special assessment in the amount of the estimate of expenditures contained in Exhibit B of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such special assessment to provide for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

SECTION 4. The apportionment and the method of spread of the special assessment, as shown in Exhibit C of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted as being a correct and proper apportionment, the assessment having been spread in accordance with benefits to be received.

SECTION 5. The assessments set forth in Exhibit B of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby confirmed and the City Council hereby determines that the assessments as set forth in Exhibit B shall be levied, collected and enforced at the same time, in the same manner, by the same officers, and with the same interest and penalties as in the case of the assessment levied to pay for the Improvements.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby finds that, due to the marginal stability of the Malibu Road area and the nature of the Malibu Road landslide mitigation system and facilities, the approved maintenance, repair and improvement expenses have to be incurred in order to maintain the level of benefit to the assessed parcels. The City Council further finds that the level of benefit derived from the Improvements would otherwise decline more rapidly than usual for other public works of the type involved because of the circumstances which do not ordinarily affect such public works, to wit, geologic instability.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds that notice of the time and place of the public hearing regarding the proposed assessment has been given as required by law.

SECTION 8. A special fund was established to be maintained and administered in accordance with the provisions of Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act, into which all payments received upon the assessment shall be deposited.

SECTION 9. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as may, in the view of such officers, be necessary or appropriate to implement the matters contemplated by this resolution and the other documents and instruments related thereto.

SECTION 10. The levy of the proposed assessment is for the maintenance, repair or minor alteration of existing facilities to provide landslide mitigation services. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the assessment and this Resolution have no significant effect on the environment for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The assessment and this Resolution are therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15061 (b) (3) and Section 15301.

Resolution No. 23-23

Page 3 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 11. 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 22nd day of May 2023. _____________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 4 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 5 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 6 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 7 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 8 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 9 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 10 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 11 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 12 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 13 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 14 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 15 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 16 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 17 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 18 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 19 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 20 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 21 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 22 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 23 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-23

Page 24 of 24 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
May 1, 2023
«Owner_Name»
«Mail_Address_Final»
«Mail_City_Final», «Mail_State_Final», «Map_Zip_Final»
«Special_Name»
Re: Internet Access to Annual Reports --Assessment District No. 98-3 Assessment No.: «Assessment_Number» Assessor's Parcel No.: «APN» Situs Address: «Situs_Address»
Dear Property Owner:

The City of Malibu will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2023 to hear comments and consider a resolution levying assessments for the maintenance, repair and improvements of works, systems and facilities for Assessment District No. 98-3 (Malibu Road). The geologist's annual report for the previous fiscal year, which is entitled "FY21/22 Maintenance and Monitoring AD98-3, Malibu Road," is posted on the City of Malibu's website. The report presents detailed discussions on the status of the district and maintenance and monitoring activitiesfor the past fiscal year.

In addition, the fiscal year 2023-24 annual assessment report for the assessment district, which is entitled "City of Malibu Assessment District No. 98-03 Malibu Road Annual Administration Report FY 2023-2024," can be found in the City Council agenda package for the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff anticipates that this year's assessments will increase by 3.65%, which is equal to the annual change in the CPI (March 2023), as specified in the annual assessment report. Please follow the steps below to access the reports.

PRIOR YEAR GEOLOGIST AND

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
FY 2023-24

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on Public Works(left side of page)

4. Click on Assessment Districts(left side of page)

5. Click on the Malibu Road. Within the district's
homepage, click on Annual Assessment Reports or
Geologist's Annual Report.

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on City Council (left side of page)

4. Click on Agendas & Minutes(left side of page)

5. Click on the View Recent Agendas and Minutes.

6. Click on the May 22, 2023 Regular Meeting link.

Locate the Malibu Road agenda item and
download the agenda item PDF file.

If you would like additional information, please contact Brandie Ayala at (310) 456-2489 ext. 352 Sincerely yours,
Mitch Mosesman
30 Three Sixty Public Finance, Inc.
for
Rob DuBoux
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City ofMalibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road ♦ Malibu, California ♦ 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 ♦ Fax (310) 317-0950 ♦www.malibucity.org ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The City of Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, May 22, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the item listed below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, and via teleconference.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR COMMENTS AND CONSIDER

RESOLUTION LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS,
SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Assessment District No. 98-3 (Malibu Road)
Written objections or comments regarding the Assessment Districts may be submitted to the City Clerk by email to [email protected] between now and Monday, May 22, 2023. If you are unable to submit your objections by email please contact the City Clerk at (310) 456-2489, ext. 228 to make alternative arrangements. All written objections or comments must be received prior to the opening of the public hearing.

A copy of all relevant material, including resolutions, staff reports, and Engineer's Reports, are on file and available by request. Requests or questions about this notice should be directed to Public Works Director Robert DuBoux at (310) 456-2489 ext. 339 or [email protected].

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN

THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director
Publish Date: May 11 and May 18, 2023

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.D.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Brandie Ayala, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: May 3, 2023 Meeting date: May 22, 2023
Subject: Assessment District 98-2 (Calle Del Barco)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 23-24 levying an assessment for the maintenance, repair and improvements works, systems and facilities of Assessment District 98-2 (Calle Del Barco) for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. All revenues and expenditures are recorded in Calle Del Barco Landslide Maintenance District Fund 291. The total District levy for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 is $92,155.70 for continued maintenance and improvements. Each Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) per single family household will be assessed at $970.06 (see Table IV-1 on page 5 of Assessment Engineer's Report - Attachment 1). The maximum allowable assessment amount is $1,357.28 per BAU, which includes an allowed annual increase set by the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 5%. The annual assessment of $1,940.12 and $970.06 per Zone A and Zone B/C household, respectively for FY 2023-24 is an increase of $107.48 and $53.74 per Zone A and Zone B/C household, respectively, over the FY 2022-23 assessment of $1,832.64 and $916.32 per Zone A and Zone B/C household, respectively. The proposed increase is 3.65% per BAU for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

WORK PLAN: This item was included as item 8.i in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-

23. DISCUSSION: The City administers the Calle Del Barco Landslide Assessment District on behalf of the district's homeowners. The district was originally established by Los Angeles County as County Improvement District Nos. 2608 and 2639 with the purpose of City Council Meeting
05-22-23
Item

4.D.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 4.D.
improving the stability of the landslide activated by the heavy winter storms in 1977-1978.

As a result of the "El Nino" storms in 1998 and landslide movement, the City Council formed the new Assessment District 98-2 (Calle Del Barco) pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. This district was formed to construct new dewatering and monitoring facilities and to take over maintenance of the entire dewatering system, replacing the maintenance function of the original Los Angeles County assessment district.

Yeh & Associates, Inc., under contract with the City of Malibu, monitors and maintains the district facilities that include 11 dewatering wells, 11 hydraugers, and numerous slope inclinometers and standpipe piezometers. The dewatering wells and hydraugers lower the groundwater level in the landslide area, thereby improving the stability of the hillside.

Readings from the hydraugers are recorded monthly. Discharge volume is recorded from the dewatering wells monthly. Water levels are measured within the inclinometers/standpipe piezometers monthly. Monitoring of subsurface land movement is done using the slope inclinometers, drilled into the ground to depths up to 130 ft. The inclinometers are recorded on a quarterly to annual basis.

For the upcoming fiscal year, anticipated work budgeted includes recording discharge from dewatering wells and hydraugers, slope inclinometer surveys, crack and ground surface monitoring, groundwater level monitoring, data plotting and analysis, and performing maintenance to dewatering wells, hydraugers, collection piping, and equipment. Proposed capital improvement projects being coordinated for the next year include upgrading flow meter equipment to facilitate remote meter readings.

Both the Annual Assessment District report and the Annual Maintenance District reports are posted on the City's website. In June 2023, a letter will be sent to all property owners in the district advising them of the availability of these reports (Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 23-24

2. Letter sent to property owners on availability of annual reports

3. Notice of Public Hearing
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND

IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS, SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-2 (CALLE DEL BARCO) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. The City Council of the City of Malibu, State of California, did on May 11, 1998, adopt its resolution of intention, Resolution No. 98-033, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 10000) (the "1913 Act") and the alternative proceedings under the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, Part 7.5 of Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 2960), for the reconstruction and annual maintenance of certain public improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith (collectively, the "Improvements"), in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 98-2 (Calle Del Barco) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").

B. Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-033 declared the Council’s intention to levy an assessment to maintain, repair or improve the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.

C. On June 29, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-051 confirming assessments and ordering improvements made for Assessment District No. 98-2.

D. The City Council proposes to levy an assessment for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 5 of the Resolution of Intention No. 98-033.

E. The City Clerk fixed a time and place for a public hearing relating to the proposed assessment.

F. At the time set for the public hearing, all comments, objections and protests were duly heard and considered.

G. All evidence, both oral and written, relative to the necessity for the proposed assessment was heard and considered.

H. The City Council is now satisfied as to the proposed assessment.

Resolution No. 23-24

Page 2 of 25 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1
I. The City Council previously designated the City Engineer to perform the duties of the Superintendent of Streets for purposes of the proceedings in connection with the annual levy of assessments for the maintenance and repair or improvement of the Improvements pursuant to Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act.

SECTION 2. The Annual Assessment Report for Assessment District No. 98-2, City of Malibu, Calle Del Barco, dated May 22, 2023 (Attachment A) is hereby accepted.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the estimate of expenditures for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as shown on Exhibit A of the Annual Assessment Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby determines to levy and collect a special assessment in the amount of the estimate of expenditures contained in Exhibit B of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such special assessment to provide for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

SECTION 4. The apportionment and the method of spread of the special assessment, as shown in Exhibit C of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted as being a correct and proper apportionment, the assessment having been spread in accordance with benefits to be received.

SECTION 5. The assessments set forth in Exhibit B of Engineer’s Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby confirmed and the City Council hereby determines that the assessments as set forth in Exhibit B shall be levied, collected and enforced at the same time, in the same manner, by the same officers, and with the same interest and penalties as in the case of the assessment levied to pay for the Improvements.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby finds that, due to the marginal stability of the Calle Del Barco area and the nature of the Calle Del Barco landslide mitigation system and facilities, the approved maintenance, repair and improvement expenses have to be incurred in order to maintain the level of benefit to the assessed parcels. The City Council further finds that the level of benefit derived from the Improvements would otherwise decline more rapidly than usual for other public works of the type involved because of the circumstances which do not ordinarily affect such public works, to wit, geologic instability.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds that notice of the time and place of the public hearing regarding the proposed assessment has been given as required by law.

SECTION 8. A special fund was established to be maintained and administered in accordance with the provisions of Section 10100.8 of the 1913 Act, into which all payments received upon the assessment shall be deposited.

SECTION 9. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as may, in the view of such officers, be necessary or appropriate to implement the matters contemplated by this resolution and the other documents and instruments related thereto.

Resolution No. 23-24

Page 3 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 10. The levy of the proposed assessment is for the maintenance, repair or minor alteration of existing facilities to provide landslide mitigation services. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the assessment and this Resolution have no significant effect on the environment for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The assessment and this Resolution are therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15061 (b) (3) and Section 15301.

SECTION 11. 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 22nd day of May 2023. _____________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 4 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 5 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 6 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 7 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 8 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 9 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 10 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 11 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 12 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 13 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 14 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 15 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 16 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 17 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 18 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 19 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 20 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 21 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 22 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 23 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 24 of 25 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Resolution No. 23-24

Page 25 of 25 ends

__________________
ATTACHMENT 1
May 1, 2023
«Owner_Name»
«Mail_Address_Final»
«Mail_City_Final», «Mail_State_Final», «Map_Zip_Final»
«Special_Name»
Re: Internet Access to Annual Reports --Assessment District No. 98-2 Assessment No.: «Assessment_Number» Assessor's Parcel No.: «APN» Situs Address: «Situs_Address»
Dear Property Owner:

The City of Malibu will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2023 to hear comments and consider a resolution levying assessments for the maintenance, repair and improvements of works, systems and facilities for Assessment District No. 98-2 (Calle Del Barco). The geologist's annual report for the previous fiscal year, which is entitled "FY21/22 Maintenance and Monitoring AD98-2, Calle Del Barco," is posted on the City of Malibu's website. The report presents detailed discussions on the status of the district and maintenance and monitoring activitiesfor the past fiscal year.

In addition, the fiscal year 2023-24 annual assessment report for the assessment district, which is entitled "City of Malibu Assessment District No. 98-02 Calle Del Barco Annual Administration Report FY 2023-2024," can be found in the City Council agenda package for the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff anticipates that this year's assessments will increase by 5.29% but assessment levels will be approximately 28.92% below the maximum assessments. Please follow the steps below to access the reports.

PRIOR YEAR GEOLOGIST AND

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
FY 2023-24

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on Public Works(left side of page)

4. Click on Assessment Districts(left side of page)

5. Click on the Calle Del Barco. Within the district's
homepage, click on Annual Assessment Reports or
Geologist's Annual Report.

1. Go to https://www.malibucity.org/

2. Click on City Government (top of page)

3. Click on City Council (left side of page)

4. Click on Agendas & Minutes(left side of page)

5. Click on the View Recent Agendas and Minutes.

6. Click on the May 22, 2023 Regular Meeting link.

Locate the Calle Del Barco agenda item and
download the agenda item PDF file.

If you would like additional information, please contact Brandie Ayala at (310) 456-2489 ext. 352 Sincerely yours,
Mitch Mosesman
30 Three Sixty Public Finance, Inc.
for
Rob DuBoux
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City ofMalibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road ♦ Malibu, California ♦ 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 ♦ Fax (310) 317-0950 ♦www.malibucity.org ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The City of Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, May 22, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the item listed below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, and via teleconference.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR COMMENTS AND CONSIDER

RESOLUTION LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT OF WORKS,
SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Assessment District No. 98-2 (Calle Del Barco)
Written objections or comments regarding the Assessment Districts may be submitted to the City Clerk by email to [email protected] between now and Monday, May 22, 2023. If you are unable to submit your objections by email please contact the City Clerk at (310) 456-2489, ext. 228 to make alternative arrangements. All written objections or comments must be received prior to the opening of the public hearing.

A copy of all relevant material, including resolutions, staff reports, and Engineer's Reports, are on file and available by request. Requests or questions about this notice should be directed to Public Works Director Robert DuBoux at (310) 456-2489 ext. 339 or [email protected].

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN

THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Robert DuBoux, Public Works Director
Publish Date: May 11 and May 18, 2023

Page 1 of 13 ends

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: May 10, 2023 Meeting date: May 22, 2023
Subject: Appeal Nos. 22-006 and 22-012 – Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46(33650 Pacific Coast Highway; Owner: Charals Haagan; Appellants: 180 PCH, LLC and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority) (Continued from May 8, 2023)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 23-26 (Exhibit A), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal (AP) Nos. 22-006 and 22-012 (Exhibit B) and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-073 for construction of a new one-story, 6,567 square foot single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement, 1,375 square foot detached garage, 720 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit, 412 square foot tennis cabana, tennis court, swimming pool, spa and grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Demolition Permit (DP) No. 22- 008 to demolish an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district located at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Haagan).

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

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

DISCUSSION: The matter is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval (the motion carried, 3 – 2) of CDP No. 19-073 and DP No. 22-008, for an application to construct a new one-story single-family residence with a basement, detached garage, detached secondary dwelling unit, tennis cabana, tennis court, swimming pool, spa, grading, OWTS, City Council Meeting
05-22-23
Item

4.E.
1

Page 2 of 13 ends

and demolish an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping (Exhibit C – Project Plans).

The project was approved by the Planning Commission at the July 18, 2022, meeting (Exhibit E – Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46). On July 28, 2022, the City received two separate appeal requests, AP No. 22-012 filed by Jake Jenson, on behalf of 180 PCH, LLC, and AP No. 22-006 filed by Joseph Edmiston, on behalf of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) (Exhibit B – AP Nos. 22-006 and 22-012).

Mr. Jenson contends that the Planning Commission’s decision is contrary to law, the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, and the decision is not supported by the findings. Mr. Jenson specifies that the blufftop setback determination for the project fails to conform to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections

10.4(D)(1) and (2) and the applicant’s consulting engineer’s interpretation of the location of the top of bluff is contrary to law. Mr. Edmiston contends that the Planning Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate evidence, not supported by the findings, and is contrary to law. In sum, Mr. Edmiston objects to the failure of the Planning Commission to require a lateral easement for public access across the beach portion of the project site.

The project site is a vacant blufftop parcel totaling approximately 4.1 acres in size. The project includes the construction of a new one-story single-family residence and associated development. Code Violation (CV) No. 22-008 is currently open on the subject parcel due to unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading, paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants, and grasses for nursery-type displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH. The applicant has applied for a demolition permit to demolish the driveway as it was constructed without permits and does not meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)’s standards for driveway width. The unpermitted chain-link gates and fences are proposed to be replaced with a fence in compliance with LIP standards. The non-native plantings and Eucalyptus trees are proposed to be removed and any other existing vegetation above the road grade within the view corridor is conditioned to be trimmed down or removed to not project above road grade elevation. The current application includes the demolition and removal of the unpermitted development which will address the outstanding violation.

Once the CDP is approved and upon final inspection after the demolition and removal of the unpermitted development, the code violation case will be resolved.

Major grading took place on the subject property sometime between 1928 and 1952 based on aerial photographs. This grading resulted in an amphitheater-shaped landform and several driveways. The project geotechnical engineer notes that this grading occurred to create a set for a movie. It is unknown whether this grading took place without the benefit of permits as the records provided to the City by the County of Los Angeles are vague prior to the 1950s-60s and therefore the existing grade is treated as an existing condition.

The project’s second residential unit is proposed on an existing dirt driveway surrounded by manufactured slopes to the north and south. Staff confirmed that the driveway existed 2

Page 3 of 13 ends

before 1991 and appears in aerial photographs since 1952. A 1928 aerial photograph provided by the project geotechnical engineer also shows that the bluff was narrow before the grading occurred. As a result, the amphitheater-shaped landform is a manufactured slope as is the driveway where the second unit is proposed. The decks for both the primary structure and second unit are proposed to be sited on land with slopes less than 4 to 1 and will be cantilevered over the adjacent slopes that have a gradient of 2.5 to 1. No new development is proposed on slopes steeper than 3 to 1.

As shown in Figure 1 below, the subject property is located on the seaward side of PCH between Nicholas Canyon Beach and El Sol County Beach. The site’s topography gradually descends from PCH. The property also includes steep slopes to the east and south. The easterly slopes are characterized as canyon slopes because there is a drainage course following the easterly property line. The southerly slopes are characterized as a coastal bluff with grading that took place before 1952.

Figure 1: 2023 Aerial Photograph
The applicant’s consulting engineer produced a report that determined the location of the historic top of bluff on the southwestern portion of the property. In their report, it was determined that a significant amount of grading had been performed within the southern portion of the site to construct an amphitheater-shaped pad area and associated access path/driveway. Based on site observations and mapping, it appears the grading consisted primarily of cutting but also appears to have involved the placement or casting of fill materials over the face of the bluff. This grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photograph from 1928. See Figure 2 below. Based on the review of historical photos, the bluff top determination and bluff retreat modeling conducted for the Our Coast, Our Future Hazard Map (OCOF) (referenced by the California Coastal Commission), and as illustrated in Figure 5, determined the location of the top of bluff (circa 2010) at a location more seaward than the natural top of bluff observed in the 1928 aerial photograph. Accordingly, the location of the 1928 natural top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback.1 1 Our Coast, Our Future is a partnership of local, state, and federal agencies, including the United States Geologic Survey, the Point Blue Conservation Science, and the California Coastal Conservancy, who has created a modeling tool to assess coastal 3

Page 4 of 13 ends

Figure 2: 1928 Aerial Photograph
Source: Land Phases
Figure 3: Current Aerial Photograph and Natural Top of Coastal Bluff Source: City GIS
As stated previously, the top of bluff area was graded sometime between 1928 and 1952.

This grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photograph from 1928, as shown in Figure 4 below.
hazards. OCOF’s determination of the natural top of bluff along California’s coastline was the basis of the California Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Document published in 2018.

Current top
of bluff
4

Page 5 of 13 ends

Figure 4: Natural and Artificial Coastal Bluffs
Source: Land Phases – Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study, January 2021 As shown in Figure 4 above, the blue line represents the current top of bluff location which was artificially created due to the aforementioned grading. The red line represents the natural top of bluff that was present before the grading. The applicant has utilized the more restrictive, original location of the top of bluff when calculating the setback and siting the proposed structures. The interpreted location of the 1928 natural top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback, rather than the current top of bluff. The LIP does not address alterations of bluffs when determining the top of bluff and the City’s established precedent is to utilize the historical top of bluff when determining the top of bluff location.

The City’s coastal engineering consulting engineers, geotechnical engineers, and the Planning Commission agreed with the applicant’s geotechnical engineer’s determination of the natural top of bluff location which is consistent with the City’s application of the LIP’s provisions related to top of bluff determinations. Figure 5 below provides an elevation, facing east, showing the illegally graded portion of the property in relation to the setback measurements for further illustration of the existing conditions.

Blue dots: Top of bluff
circa 2010 by OCOF,
Blue line: Interpolated
top of bluff by OCOF
Natural top of bluff
as determined by
Land Phases, Inc.
50 foot setback from
natural/interpreted
top of bluff
100-year bluff
retreat setback
5

Page 6 of 13 ends

Source: Land Phases – Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study, January 2021 6

Page 7 of 13 ends

retreat OCOF bluff interpolated by
modeling
Aerial PhotographBluff Observed in 1928 Natural Top of Coastal LineTop of Bluff Setback Minimum Required
Figure 6: Bluff Elevation (Section B - Fill Area)
Source: Land Phases – Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study, January 2021 7

Page 8 of 13 ends

Based on existing site conditions and possible extreme weather events, the applicant’s geology report estimates the long-term natural bluff retreat rate is two inches per year.

Therefore, projected 100-year bluff retreat on the subject property is estimated to be 16.7 feet, measured from the natural top of bluff. In addition, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer determined that the subject property possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Therefore, per LIP Section 10.4(D)(2), a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GFSL) for the static condition has not been established by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer on the bluff slope.

Per LIP Section 10.4(D)(2), a 10-foot buffer must be added to the projected 100-year bluff retreat setback distance of 16.7 feet, resulting in a 100-year bluff retreat setback of 26.7 feet. As shown in Figure 4, the minimum 50-foot setback, per LIP Section 10.4(D), is more restrictive than the 100-year bluff retreat setback from the topographic top of slope.

Accordingly, the 50-foot setback was determined to be applicable to the proposed development. The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers concurred with the engineer’s top of bluff and 50-foot setback conclusions.

This agenda report provides an analysis of the appellants’ contentions.

Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows:
a. 6,567 square foot single-family residence;
b. 1,723 square foot basement2
c. 5,050 square foot deck;
d. 1,375 square foot detached garage;
e. 720 square foot second unit;
f. 412 square foot tennis cabana;
g. 466 square foot deck;
h. Total development square footage (TDSF) for the project is 9,471 square feet; i. Swimming pool and spa;
j. 7,194 square foot tennis court and fencing;
k. Retaining walls (not to exceed six feet in height);
l. OWTS;
m. Landscaping;
n. Grading; and
o. DP No. 22-008 for removal of unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading and paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants and grasses for nurserytype displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH.

2 The initial 1,000 square feet of a basement area is not counted towards TDSF and only half the amount of the balance is counted. The total amount of basement area counted towards TDSF is 362 square feet. 8

Page 9 of 13 ends

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellants contend that the findings are not supported by the evidence, there was a lack of fair or impartial hearing, and the decision was contrary to law. Each appellants’ specific arguments are summarized below in italics using phrases taken from the appeal.

Following the appellants’ stated appeal argument is a staff summary. The Planning Commission agenda report, in which staff recommended approval of the project, is included as Exhibit D. The Planning Commission agenda report includes a complete overview of the surrounding area, project conformance with the LCP and MMC, and a discussion of all findings required to approve the application. The adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46, approving the project, is included as Exhibit E.

AP No. 22-012 (180 PCH, LLC)
APPEAL ITEM 1: The blufftop setback determination for the project fails to conform to LIP Sections 10.4(d)(1) and (2). The applicant’s consulting engineer’s interpretation of the location of the top of bluff is contrary to established law. 180 PCH, LLC appeals the Malibu Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 19-073 in its entirety. The decision is contrary to law, the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, and the decision is not supported by the findings for the reasons listed below:

Consistency with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that:

New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

The LIP defines “Bluff Edge” as follows:
“For coastal and canyon bluffs, the bluff edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a 9

Page 10 of 13 ends

point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.”
Staff Response
The grading of the property that occurred between 1928 and 1952 removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff. Relying on an aerial photograph from 1928, the applicant’s engineers needed to determine the original top of bluff location to establish a bluff setback line. As confirmed by OCOF data, the current top of bluff is located much closer to the shoreline which, if employed for development purposes, could expose development on the property to more hazards from coastal processes such as erosion and wave uprush. The natural top of bluff location, determined by the applicant’s engineers, is more conservative than what the current science states based on bluff retreat models and therefore should not be considered the top of coastal bluff. Utilizing the natural top of bluff location, as determined by the applicant’s engineers, allows for the proposed structure to be sited further away from coastal hazards and is therefore more restrictive in terms of designating setbacks. The established, natural top of bluff is therefore more restrictive.

Pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D), the proposed structure must be set back from the edge of the bluff by a sufficient distance to ensure it will not be endangered by erosion or threatened by slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. The minimum setback distance is set at 100 feet but that distance can be reduced to 50 feet if the City geotechnical consultant reviewers determine that the proposed project meets the standards of LIP Sections 10.4(D)(1) or 10.4(D)(2).

In conformance with the standards of LIP Section 10.4(D)(1), the evidence, including the engineer’s report, shows the subject bluff possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Due to the stability factor determination, a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GSFL) for the static condition was not required to be established and therefore the bluff is not expected to erode over a 100-year period to a degree that would endanger that structure when placed 50 feet from the bluff edge.

Since the subject bluff exhibits a slope stability factor greater than 1.5, LIP Section

10.4(D)(2) requires the proposed structure to be set back a minimum distance equal to the distance that the bluff might reasonably be expected to erode over 100 years plus a 10-foot buffer to ensure that the foundation elements are not undermined at the end of the 100-year period. The evidence in the record shows the estimated amount of bluff retreat over a 100-year period to be 16.7 feet. The established 100-year bluff retreat setback line is therefore 26.7 feet from the natural top of bluff, inclusive of the 10-foot buffer. As this required amount of distance from the bluff edge is less than the 50-foot setback required 10

Page 11 of 13 ends

by LIP Section 10.4(D), the 50-foot setback was used as the more restrictive standards rather than the 100-foot setback.

The determination of the natural, historical top of bluff location is consistent with the City’s past implementation of LIP Chapter 10 and meets the LIP’s definition of Bluff Edge. In their approvals, dated June 29, 2021 and May 18, 2022, the City’s geotechnical and coastal engineering consultant reviewers agreed with the applicant’s engineers’ determination per LIP Section 10.4(d)(1) and (2) and determined the project meets the City of Malibu standards for bluff setback and the California Coastal Commission’s current guidance for evaluation of the impacts of sea level rise. The Planning Commission agreed that the top of bluff determination met the standards of LIP Chapter 10 and voted in favor of the proposed project. In addition, as such, the project is not anticipated to impact other resources due to project design or location.

AP No. 22-006 (MRCA)
APPEAL ITEM 2: The failure to require a lateral easement for public recreational activities is contrary to the Coastal Act and Malibu’s LCP.

MRCA asserts that the Planning Commission’s failure to require as a condition of approval the dedication of a public lateral easement as part of the coastal development permit for this new coastal development is contrary to the public access provisions of the Coastal Act and Malibu’s LCP.

Failure to require a lateral easement for public recreational activities across the beach portion as a condition of approval of this new development, which includes a large section of the beach cove, limits the public’s ability to move along this beach and thus, is not a maximization of the public access along the coast, nor does it maximize public recreational activities. Instead, the Planning Commission’s refusal to include a lateral easement subverts the intentions of the Coastal Act and the Malibu LCP.

Staff Response
A central purpose of LIP Chapter 12 (Public Access) is to maximize public access to the coast and public recreational opportunities, as set forth in the California Coastal Act. LIP Section 12.4 states that public access is required as a condition of approval and prior to issuance of a permit or other authorization for any new development, except as provided in Section 12.5, which provides an exception if adequate access exists nearby.

Figure 5 below displays a portion of Section 1 of the LCP’s Public Access Map. The subject property is located approximately 750 feet from the entrance of Nicholas Canyon Beach and less than a quarter mile from El Sol County Beach. While El Sol County Beach does not provide direct access to the beach from Pacific Coast Highway as the Nicholas Canyon Beach access does, El Sol County Beach is publicly-owned land that is accessible to the 11

Page 12 of 13 ends

public via beach walking within the ‘wet sand’ area. The proximity to Nicholas Canyon Beach provides adequate public access in the immediate area.

Figure 5 – Public Access Map
While the property is located between the nearest public roadway and the sea, it does not result in blockage of any existing public access. Similarly, the development of the property will not impede existing public access along the beach. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project would not interfere with existing beach access and found no correlation between the project and beach access. Therefore, the Commission did not find it appropriate to condition the project to grant a lateral easement. However, at the public hearing, a Planning Commissioner inquired whether the property owner would voluntarily grant a lateral access easement, but the applicant declined. Not requiring such an easement does not inhibit or obstruct any existing public access. Similarly, the new singlefamily residential development 33834 PCH (CDP No. 17-064), located directly adjacent to Nicolas Canyon Beach, was not required to have a lateral access easement as part of its 2018 approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any public correspondence related to both appeals.

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
12

Page 13 of 13 ends

PUBLIC NOTICE: On April 13, 2023, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Exhibit G).

SUMMARY: Based on the record as a whole, including but not limited to all written and oral testimony offered in connection with this matter, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 23-26, denying the appeal and upholding the approval of CDP 19-073 and DP 22-008.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 23-26
B. Appeal Nos. 22-006 and 22-012
C. Project Plans – Approved by the Planning Commission on July 18, 2022 D. July 18, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Report Item 4.A.

E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46
F. Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study
G. Public Hearing Notice
13 EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 23-26

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

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL
NOS. 22-006 AND 22-012 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-073 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE-STORY, 6,567 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PLUS A 1,723 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,375 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, 720 SQUARE FOOT
DETACHED SECOND UNIT, 412 SQUARE FOOT TENNIS CABANA, TENNIS

COURT, SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND GRADING, AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM; INCLUDING
DEMOLITION PERMIT NO. 22-008 TO DEMOLISH AN UNPERMITTED

DRIVEWAY, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL-TWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 33650

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (HAAGAN)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On October 10, 2019, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-073 and Demolition Permit (DP) No. 22-008 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Eric Rochin, on behalf of the property owner, Charals Haagen. The application was routed to the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On December 9, 2021, the Planning Department deemed the application complete for processing.

C. On December 29, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions and surrounding area.

D. On May 11, 2022, story poles were installed to demonstrate the location and height of the proposed project.

E. On May 11, 2022, story poles were installed to demonstrate the location and height of the proposed project.

F. On May 18, 2022, staff conducted a site visit to determine visual impacts and document the story poles.

G. On April 28, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

H. On May 19, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. 14 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 2 of 24 ends

______________________
I. On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the July 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

J. On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and approved the application and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46 approving CDP No. 19-073 for construction of a new one-story 6,567 square foot single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement, 1,375 square foot detached garage, 720 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit, 412 square foot tennis cabana, tennis court, swimming pool, spa and grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including DP No. 22-008 to demolish an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping.

K. On July 28, 2022, appeals were submitted by Jake Jenson and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA).

L. On April 13, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupant within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On May 8, 2023, the item was continued to the May 22, 2023 Regular City Council meeting.

N. On May 22, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written materials, public testimony, and other information in the record, including the City Council Agenda report, and based thereon makes the following determination.

SECTION 2. Appeal of Action.

The appeal filed by Jake Jenson contends that the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, the decision is not supported by the findings, and the decision was contrary to law.

Specifically, the appeal from Mr. Jenson contends that blufftop setback determination for the project fails to conform to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 10.4(d)(1) and (2) and the applicant’s consulting engineer’s interpretation of the location of the top of bluff is contrary to established law.

The appeal from MRCA contends that failure to require a lateral easement for public recreational activities is contrary to the Coastal Act and Malibu’s LCP.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denying the Appeal.

Based on evidence contained within the record including, but not limited to, the content of the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denies the appeals, and approves the project. 15 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 3 of 24 ends

______________________
APPEAL FROM 180 PCH LLC
The grading of the property that occurred between 1928 and 1952 removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff. Relying on an aerial photograph from 1928 photograph, the applicant’s engineers needed to determine the original top of bluff location in order to establish a bluff setback line. As confirmed by Our Coast, Our Future (OCOF) data, the current top of bluff is located much closer to the shoreline which, if employed for development purposes, could expose development on the property to more hazards from coastal processes such as erosion and wave uprush. Therefore the natural top of bluff location, determined by the applicant’s engineers, is more conservative than what the current science states based on bluff retreat models and the stepped area further landward is not subject to coastal processes and therefore cannot be considered the top of coastal bluff.

Utilizing the natural top of bluff location allows for the proposed structure to be sited further away from coastal hazards and is therefore more restrictive in terms of designating setbacks. The established, natural top of bluff is therefore more restrictive.

Pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D), the proposed structure of the single-family home must be set back from the edge of bluff by a sufficient distance to ensure it will not be endangered by erosion or threatened by slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. The minimum setback distance is set at 100 feet, but the distance can be reduced to 50 feet if the City geotechnical consultant reviewers determine that it meets the standards of LIP Sections 10.4(D)(1) or 10.4(D)(2).

In conformance with the standards of LIP Sections 10.4(D)(1), the evidence, including the engineer’s report, shows that the subject bluff possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Due to the stability factor determination, a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GSFL) for the static condition was not required to be established and therefore the bluff is not expected to erode over a 100-year period to a degree that would endanger the structure when placed 50 feet from the bluff edge.

Since the subject bluff exhibits a slope stability factor greater than 1.5, LIP Section 10.4(D)(2) requires the proposed structure to be set back a minimum distance equal to the distance that the bluff might reasonably be expected to erode over 100 years plus a 10-foot buffer to ensure that foundation elements are not undermined at the end of the 100-year period. The evidence in the record shows the estimated amount of bluff retreat over a 100-year period to be 16.7 feet. The established 100-year bluff retreat setback line is therefore 26.7 feet from the natural top of bluff, inclusive of the 10-foot buffer. As this required amount of distance from the bluff edge is less than the 50-foot setback required by LIP section 10.4(D), the 50-foot setback was used as the more restrictive standard rather than the 100-foot setback.

The determination of the natural, historical top of bluff location is consistent with the City’s past implementation of LIP Chapter 10 and meets the LIP’s definition of Bluff Edge. In their approval, dated May 18, 2022, City coastal engineering consultant review, which agreed with the applicant’s engineers’ determination per LIP Section 10.4(D)(1) and (2), and determined the project meets the City of Malibu standards for bluff setback and the California Coastal Commission’s current guidance for evaluation of the impacts of sea level rise. As such, the project is not anticipated to impact other resources due to project design or location. 16 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 4 of 24 ends

______________________
As a result, and for all of the reasons described above and below, the Council finds that the evidence shows the proposed project is consistent with LIP Sections 10.4(D)(1) and (2), and the location of the top of bluff was determined in accordance with the LIP and therefore the Planning Commission’s decision was not contrary to law.

APPEAL FROM MRCA
The purpose of LIP Chapter 12 (Public Access) is to maximize public access to the coast and public recreational opportunities, as set forth in the California Coastal Act. LIP Section 12.4 states that public access is required as a condition of approval and prior to issuance of a permit or other authorization for any new development, except as provided in Section 12.5, which provides an exception if adequate access exists nearby.

The subject property is located approximately 750 feet from the entrance of Nicholas Canyon Beach and less than a quarter mile from El Sol County Beach. While El Sol County Beach does not provide direct access to the beach from Pacific Coast Highway like Nicholas Canyon, El Sol Beach is publicly-owned land that is accessible to the public via beach walking within the ‘wet sand’ area. There are also mapped lateral accessways to the west of El Sol Beach.

While the property is located between the nearest public roadway and the sea, the project will not block any existing public access. Similarly, the development of the property will not impede existing public access along the beach.

In summary, the Council finds that the evidence shows that the proposed project is consistent with the LIP, including Chapter 12 and specifically Sections 12.4 and 12.5, and the Planning Commission’s decision to not require a lateral easement for public access is supported by the evidence and is in accordance with the law.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction. The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 5. LIP Findings
Based on the evidence in the record (including, but not limited to, the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council) the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denying the appeal and approving the project and finds that substantial evidence in the record supports the required findings for approval of the project.
17 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 5 of 24 ends

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

A. Coastal Development Permit Findings (MMC Chapter 13)

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, LACFD, and LAWD. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all the required residential development standards of the RR-2 residential zoning district.

2. The project conforms to the public access in recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that it will not affect the public’s right to access the coast as no development is proposed on the sand and adequate public access exists nearby at Nicolas Canyon County Beach and El Sol County Beach. Therefore, adequate public access exists nearby, and the project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

3. Evidence in the record, including detailed alternatives analysis provided in the Agenda Report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The proposed project is a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel. The neighborhood is primarily built out with single-family residential buildings along the ocean. An analysis of the project’s visual impact from the beach was conducted through site inspections and architectural plans. As the proposed development will maintain the required 50-foot bluff setback and at heights not to exceed 18 feet, the proposed buildings are not expected to be prominent as view from the beach as only the top portions of the residence and second unit will be visible. The project is in conformance with LIP Chapter 6’s requirements for new developments on parcels located on the ocean side of public roads.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

3. The project as proposed and conditioned will result in less than significant impacts on scenic and visual resources. The location proposed for development would result in a less than significant visual impact to public view from the beach and will not impact sensitive resources.

All proposed development conforms to the bluewater ocean views requirements.

4. The subject parcel’s topography, setbacks, and height restrictions limit a feasible alternative to the siting of the proposed development. The structure is below the roadway elevation, meeting the LIP standard for new development on parcels located on the ocean side of public 18 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 6 of 24 ends

______________________
roads. As such, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. The proposed project’s location is sited in the only area of the subject parcel that minimizes potential impacts to scenic and visual resources. As such, the proposed project is in conformance with the sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neigh be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. The proposed project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and conditions required by the City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the LACFD, including foundations, OWTS, and drainage. As such, the proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, fire, or any other hazards.

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

3. The proposed 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 geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. These specialists and agencies determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. Since there are no significant impacts expected, there are no feasible alternatives to reduce significant impacts.

5. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

D. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)

1. The project site is a bluff-top property on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway and includes the construction of a new single-story, single-family residence. No construction on the bluff is proposed. The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers agreed with the applicant’s engineering assessment in determining the top of bluff and the setback of 50 feet. The top of bluff area was grading between 1928 and 1952. The grading altered or removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photographs from 1928. The interpreted location of the 1928 top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback. In addition, the proposed residence is site on the front half of the lot, closer to Pacific Coast Highway and away from the top of bluff.

Based on existing site conditions and possible extreme weather events, the applicant’s geology report estimates the long-term natural bluff retreat rate is 2 inches per year (0.167 feet per year).

The amount of bluff retreat on the subject property over a 100-year period is then estimated to be 19 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 7 of 24 ends

______________________

16.7 feet. In addition, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer determined that the subject property possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Therefore, a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GFSL) for the static condition has not been established by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer on the bluff slope. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer estimates the amount of bluff retreat within the subject property over a 100-year period to be 16.7 feet. Per LIP Section 10.4.D.2, a 10-foot buffer is required to be added to the 100-year bluff retreat setback distance of 16.7 feet. The resulting 100-year bluff retreat setback line is determined to be

26.7 feet from the topographic top of bluff. The minimum 50-foot setback is more restrictive than the 100-year bluff retreat setback from the topographic top of slop. Accordingly, the 50-foot setback was determined to govern the siting of the proposed development. Per LIP Section 10.4.D, the City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers agreed with the engineer’s assessment in determining the top of bluff and agree that the setback should be 50 feet. As such, the project is not anticipated to impact other resources due to project design or location. In addition, the subject property is located less than a quarter mile from Nicholas Beach Road, which provides access to Nicholas Canyon County Beach. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources.

2. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is sited in the only feasible location which is in conformance with LIP Chapter 10 and will not have significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

4. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

5. The project does not include a shoreline protection device or any bluff slope protection device and therefore, this finding is not applicable.

E. Demolition Permit Findings (MMC Chapter 17.70)

1. 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. The Coastal Development Permit application is being processed concurrently with the Demolition Permit application No. 22-008, and approval of the demolition permit is subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-073.

SECTION 6. City Council Approval.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 19-073 and DP No. 22-008, subject to the following conditions. 20 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 8 of 24 ends

______________________
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approval includes:
a. 6,567 square foot single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement and a 5,050 square foot deck;
b. 1,375 square foot detached garage;
c. 720 square foot second unit with a 466 square foot deck; d. 412 square foot tennis cabana;
e. Total development square footage (TDSF) for the project is 9,471 square feet; f. Swimming pool and spa;
g. 7,194 square foot tennis court and fencing;
h. OWTS;
i. Landscaping;
j. Grading; and
k. DP No. 22-008 for removal of unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading and paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants and grasses for nurserytype displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH.

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be insubstantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped May 25, 2022. In the event the project plans conflict with any conditions 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 and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. Additional evidence shall be provided to demonstrate that the proposed cantilevered decks will not be built within existing steep slopes prior to plan check. Any increase in height to the buildings as a result of compliance with this condition would result in an amendment to the CDP.

6. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.
21 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 9 of 24 ends

______________________

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

In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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

9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured. 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 MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

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

Cultural Resources

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

14. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in 22 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 10 of 24 ends

______________________
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.

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

View Corridor

22. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(1)(e) and in order to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources, the project is conditioned as follows:
a. Structures shall extend no higher than the road grade of PCH adjacent to the project site.
23 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 11 of 24 ends

______________________
b. Fences shall be located away from the road edge and fences or walls shall be no higher than adjacent road grade of PCH, with the exception of fences that are composed of visually permeable design and material.
c. The project site shall be landscaped with native vegetation types that have a maximum growth height at maturity and are located such that landscaping will not extend above PCH road grade.
d. Existing vegetation shall be removed, or trimmed and maintained in perpetuity so as not to extend above the adjacent road elevation of PCH.

Construction/Demo Conditions
Demolition/Solid Waste

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

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

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

26. Upon plan check approval of demolition plans, the applicant shall secure a demolition permit from the City. The applicant shall comply with all conditions related to demolition imposed by the Building Official.

27. 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.

28. Any 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.

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

Construction/Framing

30. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to final plan check approval.
24 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 12 of 24 ends

______________________

31. 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.

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

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

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

35. The applicant/property owner shall obtain all required permits, including approval for mechanized equipment to access to the beach, from Beaches and Harbor prior to commencement of construction.

36. The applicant/property owner shall obtain all required permits, if any, including any necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to commencement of construction.

37. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.
25 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 13 of 24 ends

______________________
Colors and Materials

38. The project is visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas, therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

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

Biology/Landscaping

40. The use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance which has the potential to significantly degrade biological resources shall be prohibited throughout the City of Malibu. The eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration shall consider first the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls. Herbicides may be selected only after all other non-chemical methods have been exhausted. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and use for a limited time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.
26 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 14 of 24 ends

______________________

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

Public Works

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

48. 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.

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

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

50. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,000 cubic yards, cut and fill.

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

52. 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 Control Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Fencing
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
27 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 15 of 24 ends

______________________
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.

53. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs):
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofitrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the 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.

54. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. 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); b. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic 28 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 16 of 24 ends

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

55. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the submittal of the required construction general permit document to the State Water Quality Control Board, the property owner / applicant shall submit the Public Works Department an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for review. The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs prepared and certified by a qualified SWPPP developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California civil engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
a. Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area
b. Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees
c. Sediment/erosion control
d. Controls to prevent tracking on- and off-site
e. Non-stormwater control
f. Material management (delivery and storage)
g. Spill prevention and control
h. Waste management
i. Identification of site risk level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit
j. Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that quality personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grand and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.” 29 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 17 of 24 ends

______________________

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

57. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.

The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

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

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

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

60. 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.

61. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion of final grading.

Floodplain Management

62. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall notify the Public Works Department to take this action to City Council to obtain a variance.

63. Proposed improvements are located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). An Elevation Certificate based on construction drawings is required for any building located within the SFHA. A survey map shall be attached to this certificate showing the location of the proposed building(s) in relation to the property lines and to the street center line. The survey map shall delineate the boundary of the SFHA zone(s) based on the FIRM flood maps in effect and provide the information for the benchmark utilized, the vertical datum, 30 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 18 of 24 ends

______________________
and any datum conversion. A post construction Elevation Certificate will be required to certify building elevations, when the construction is complete, and shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final approval of the construction.

64. The proposed septic system is located within a SFHA, Zone VE 24. The proposed septic system shall be designed to eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from the system into flood waters. The septic system shall be located to avoid impairment or contamination during flooding. The septic system shall be buried below the expected depth of erosion and scour. The tank shall be anchored to prevent a buoyancy failure. Septic system tanks must not be structurally attached to building foundations. All septic lines shall be protected from water and debris damage. Riser lines shall be located on the landward side of a pile or other vertical structural member or inside an enclosure designed to withstand the forces from the event.

Geology

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

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

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)

67. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.

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

69. 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, 31 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 19 of 24 ends

______________________
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).

70. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42-inches tall.

71. 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 of flow 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 if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed 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 of the 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 of hydraulic 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.
32 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 20 of 24 ends

______________________

72. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the applicant shall provide engineer’s certification for reduction in setbacks to buildings or structures: All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Table

15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced.

Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table 15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California-licensed architect, then the required architect’s certification may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setbacks to the wastewater system. In this case, the engineer must include in his/her letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback, then the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Safety Division plan check. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters.

73. 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 work shall be the responsibility of the applicant and their agents.”

74. Final plans shall clearly show the locations of all existing OWTS components (serving preexisting development) to be abandoned and provide procedures for the OWTS’ proper abandonment in conformance with the MMC.

75. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans 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.

76. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area 33 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 21 of 24 ends

______________________
(i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair.

Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Environmental Sustainability Department.

77. Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

78. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.

79. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, 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 OWTS after construction shall be submitted. Only original wet signature documents are acceptable and shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

80. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said 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.

81. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

82. The City Coastal engineering consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

83. 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.

Water Quality/Water Service

84. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve Letter from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service. 34 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 22 of 24 ends

______________________

85. Prior to final inspection (or project sign off, as applicable) by the Planning Department, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a meter, if applicable.

Prior to Occupancy

86. 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.

87. 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.

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.

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

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

Fixed Conditions

91. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

92. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.

Deed Restrictions

93. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that the property is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff, and that the property owner assumes said risks and waives any future claims of damage or liability against the City of Malibu and agrees to indemnify the City of Malibu against any liability, claims, damages or expenses 35 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 23 of 24 ends

______________________
arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.

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

95. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 15-21.

The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May 2023.

BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
36 Resolution No. 23-26

Page 24 of 24 ends

______________________
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the Council’s decision to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 37 IRECEIVED
City ofMalibu JUL 282022
23825 Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, California 90265-48 LANNING DEPT Phone (310)456-2489 Fax (310) 456-3356 www.malibucit-v or~

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL CHECKLIST
Actions Subject to Local Appeal: Pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision or any portion of the decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by an aggrieved person, and any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person.

Deadline and Fees: Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1, an appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days following the date of action for which the appeal is made, as indicated in the decision. If the tenth day falls on a weekend or a City-recognized holiday, the deadline shall extend to the close of business at City Hall on the first business day (whether whole or partial) following the weekend or a City-recognized holiday. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee of $500 as specified by the City Council.

To perfect an appeal, the form must be completed, together with all the necessary attachments, and must be timely received by the City Clerk either in person or by mail addressed to City of Malibu, Attn: City Clerk, 23525 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265. For more information, contact Patricia Salazar, Senior Administrative Analyst, at (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? CDP No. 19-073 and Demo Permit No. 22-008

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? July 18, 2022

3. 4.

Who made the decision you are appealing?
~ Planning Director 5 Planning Commission
What is the address of the project site at issue?
33650 Pacific coast Highway, Malibu CA 90265
Part II. Appeal Summary

Page 1 of 4 ends

P:\Fonns\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Appeal Checklist CDP 210125.docx APPEAL NO. 22-012
Exhibit B
38 It

1. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box.

El I am the Applicant for the project
El I am the neighbor
E Other (describe)
The Mountains Recreation & conservation Authority has an interest in ensuring public access to beaches.

The Applicant has not provided the public with a lateral easement across his beachfront property.

2. If you are not the applicant, please indicant the applicant’s name:
charals Haagan

3. Indicate the nature of your appeal.
a) Are you appealing the 121 approval or El the denial of the application or El a condition of approval?
b) Each approval is accompanied by a list of specific conditions. If you are appealing one or more of the conditions of approval, list the condition number and state the grounds for your appeal. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)

4. Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate which of the following reasons forms the basis of your appeal:
1K! The findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings: or
El There was a lack of fair or impartial hearing: or
~ The decision was contrary to law.

You must next provide a specific statement in support of each of the bases for appeal that you have checked above. Appeals that are stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.) See attached letter.

Page 2 of 4 ends

39 Each coastal development permitting decision made by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission is accompanied by written findings. The written findings set forth the basis for the decision. If you have checked the first box in this section as a ground for your appeal, you must indicate the specific finding(s) you disagree with and give specific reasons why you believe the finding(s) is/are not supported by the evidence or why the decision is not supported by the findings. Appeals stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
See attached letter.

Part Ill. Appeal Checklist
ALL of the following must be timely filed to perfect an appeaL El Completed Appeal Checklist (This form with appellant’s signature)

2. 1~1 Appeal Fee $750
The appeal fee must be submitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the City of Malibu. Cash will not be accepted.

3. El Mailing Labels and Radius Maps for Public Notice to Property Owners and Occupants Public Notice of an appeal must conform to the manner in which the original notice was given. The notice radius for appealable CDPs and non-appealable CDPs that do not require a public hearing is 100 feet for property owners and residents. The notice radius for non-appealable CDPs that require a public hearing is 300 feet for property owners and 100 feet for residents.

The mailing labels and radius map must be certified by the preparer (a form is available at the public counter): certification may not be more than six months prior to the date of submittal; the radius map must be provided on an 8%” x 11” paper; the mailing labels must be printed on 8%” x I 1” paper, 3 columns, 10 rows (e.g. Avery 5160).

Page 3 ends

40 Part IV. Signature and Appellant Information
I hereby certi4’ that the appeal submittal contains all ofthe above items. I understand that ifany ofthe items are missing or otherwise deficient, the appeal is ineffective and the filing fee may be returned. IN ORDER TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, ALL APPEAL SUBMIITALS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THE DEADLINE. NO

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR APPELLANTS WHO ONLY PARTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE DEADLINE. IF AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED BY THE DEADLINE, THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL.

Joseph T. Edmiston 818-878-0866 x140

PRINT APPELLANTS NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
O~flys~ncd hyJosepb Joseph Edmiston ~ I5;0023-OIW 7/27/2022

APPELLANTS SIGNATURE DATE
Appellant’s mailing address: 26800 Mulholland Highway, Calabasas, CA 91302 Appellant’s email address: edmiston~smmc.ca.gov

OFFICE USE ONLY
Action Appealed:

Appeal Period:

Date Appeal Form and required documents submitted: ________________________Received by:

Appeal Completion Date: ___________________ by: _____________________________________ (Name, Title)
Page4of4
CDP NO. 19.73
7/19/22 - 7/28/22
7/28/22 B. Martinez
7/28/22 Patricia Salazar
41 Appeal of Grant of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-073, Demolition Permit No. 22-008 —An application to construct a new one-story, single-family residence and associated development
Statement in support of basis for appeal:

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) appeals the Planning Commission’s grant of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Demolition Permit to applicant Charals Haagan (Applicant) based on Planning Commission’s staff reports’ inaccurate evidence, Planning Commission findings not supported by the evidence, and that the Planning Commission’s decision was contrary to law.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION IS BASED ON INACCURATE EVIDENCE AND

NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS
The failure of the Planning Commission to require a lateral easement for public access in its grant of the applicant’s CDP is the basis for the MRCA appeal. The Applicant did not dedicate to the public a lateral easement for public access across the beach portion of his beachfront property in his CDP application. Additionally, the Planning Commission stated that it would not require a lateral easement.

Inaccurate Facts: The Planning Commission’s grant of the CDP absent an accompanying lateral easement is based on a mischaracterization of the availability of adequate public access at this site. The lateral public access easement over this parcel would ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act regarding public coastal access.

In its decision, as stated in its staff report, “adequate public access exists adjacent to this property and therefore the proposed project does not require an additional lateral access easement in order to conform to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976” and that the “project conforms to the public and access recreation policies of the Coastal Act” because “public access exists nearby at Nicholas Canyon County Beach and El Sol County Beach The Planning Commission relied on these statements to support its finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Act. But this determination is based on erroneous facts.

First, contrary to the Planning Commission’s staff’s report, and as stated in the MRCA’s June 6, 2022, public comment letter, there is no existing public access at El Sol County Beach. Second, public access to the stretch of beach where the proposed development is located is not easy to access due to the rocky points between El Sol Beach and the proposed development and Nicholas County Beach and the proposed development. Because either no public access exists or the access that exists is dangerous or impossible, these inaccuracies should not form the foundation of the Planning Commission’s finding that the project without a lateral easement condition requirement is consistent with the Coastal Act.

Findings Not Supported by Evidence:

The Planning Commission’s lack of requirement to dedicate a lateral easement for public access is not supported by the evidence. The Malibu’s LCP map shows that lateral easements were required along this stretch of beach for other past developments (see attached). If the public is able to traverse the rocky point at Nicolas Beach during favorable tidal conditions, or if public access at El Sol beach becomes open in the future, the public’s ability to traverse this 42 stretch of beach will still be encumbered by the lack of lateral access across this parcel. The beach width of the subject property is approximately .06 mile (304 feet), significantly wider than the other parcels to the west where laterals were required as a condition of development. (The four parcels’ laterals to the west combined is .1 mile (524 feet) of beach width.) This large of a gap across the proposed development property will effectively serve to impede lateral public access along this cove beach. Therefore, these underlying facts were absent from the Planning Commission’s record and do not support the Planning Commission’s finding that the project without a lateral easement condition requirement is consistent with the Coastal Act.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION IS CONTRARY TO LAW
MRCA asserts that the Planning Commission’s failure to require as a condition of approval the dedication of a public lateral easement as part of the coastal development permit for this new coastal development is contrary to the public access provisions of the Coastal Act and Malibu’s LCP.

The Coastal Act (Public Resources Code (PRC)Sections 30000 et seq) states: “(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (I) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected.” (PRC section 30212) The Coastal Act (PRC section 30001.5) declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to: (a) Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners [Emphasis added.J
The Malibu LCP incorporates the Coastal Act and in its Land Use Plan Policies, section 2.1, states that “The shoreline, parklands, beaches and trails located within the City provide a wide range of recreational opportunities in natural settings which include hiking, equestrian activities, bicycling, camping, educational study, picnicking, and coastal access. These recreational opportunities shall be protected, and where feasible, expanded or enhanced as a resource of regional, state and national importance.”
Failure to require a lateral easement for public recreational activities across the beach portion as a condition of approval of this new development, which includes a large section of the beach cove, limits the public’s ability to move along this beach and thus, is not a maximization of the public access along the coast, nor does it maximize public recreational activities. Instead, the Planning Commission’s refusal to include a lateral easement subverts the intentions of the Coastal Act and the Malibu LCP. In the public hearing on July 18, 2022, both the Applicant and the Planning Commission recognized that the four properties to the west of the subject parcel had lateral easements dedicated to the public. In fact, Commissioner Keith Hill stated, “[l]here was an argument that other parcels in the area do have one, so this one doesn’t need one. But to my mind, if others have it, then that is more for the argument, more of an argument, that this one should have it so that the people can actually get through.” Although Commissioner Hill requested an amendment to include a permit condition of a public lateral access easement, both 43 the Applicant and the other Planning Commissioners refused and cited no adequate basis for doing so. Assistant Planning Director Adrian Fernandez said, ‘It has not been the city’s policy to require these lateral easements. . .lt is not a code requirement if there is no correlation between the application and any obstruction to existing access.” Commissioner Jennings stated the procedure to let an applicant decide whether or not they want to dedicate a lateral easement is done so the City “does not end up in supreme court all day long.” It appears the City’s dedication to its own self preservation overrides its obligations under its LCP and the Coastal Act to provide maximum coastal access. Commissioner Hill voiced concerned about the need to consider a 100-year time span and stated, “the Coastal Commission wants an 8.5-foot sea level rise. But it’s probably fine for now, ... but several decades from now, there will not be beach there and the only place that anybody can walk is on your property.” The Applicant said he could not argue what it is like in the future and given how most beaches are in Malibu, he thought it would be okay just going with what the mean high tide is .

There was no demonstration by the Planning Commission that a lateral access easement was not feasible; rather, the Planning Commission simply accepted the Applicant’s determination that in 100 years, the Mean High Tide would increase the beach availability to the public in front of his property and that this was adequate to meet the Commissioner’s findings regarding the Coastal Act. Furthermore, the Commissioners in the record stated that they preferred to remain free of litigation challenges from developers over a permit condition obligation to provide access to this “resource of regional, state and national importance.” Lastly, the Planning Commission’s finding that there is no need for a condition of a lateral easement across the beach portion of the subject development parcel because there are four existing lateral easements on the properties to the north is insufficient evidence that this permit meets the Coastal Act requirements. Rather, the Commission’s finding that because most of the other property owners on this beach had dedicated laterals, there is no need for another lateral simply operates to reward the Applicant at the expense of public coastal access, a guaranteed constitutional right of every Californian.

For all the above reasons, the MRCA asserts its appeal should be granted as the Planning Commission’s failed to adhere to the Malibu LCP and Coastal Act when it approved the subject CDP without a condition to dedicate a lateral public access easement. 44 N~ ~I i
~<kt4~tht
S
0 I
01%t~’
Local Coastal Program
jPubIic Access
Malibu LCP Map
45 APPEAL NO. 22-006
46 47
48 49
1 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPEAL SUBMITTAL
CDP NO. 19-073
180 PCH, LLC appeals the Malibu Planning Commission’s July 18, 2022 approval of CDP No. 19- 073 in its entirety. The decision is contrary to law, the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, and the decision is not supported by the findings for the reasons listed below:

Consistency with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that:

New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. …
The LIP defines “Bluff Edge” as follows:
“For coastal and canyon bluffs, the bluff edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.”
50 2
Here:
• The blufftop setback determination for the project fails to conform to LCP LIP Sections

10.4(d)(1) and (2).
• The applicant’s consulting engineer’s interpretation of the location of the top of bluff is contrary to established law.
51 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC OCEAN 50' TOP OF BLUFF SET BACK LINE 65' MIN FRONT YARD SET BACK TOP OF COASTAL BLUFF MID POINT LOT WIDTH - 327'-0" PROPERTY LINE 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT EXISTING STEPS PROPERTY OWNER TITLE: DATE: TITLE SHEET WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP C/O ERIC ROCHIN 25205 MALIBU ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 323-403-2240 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA PLOT PLAN A - 0 TITLE SHEET A - 1 SITE PLAN A - 1a SITE PLAN - DEMO A - 2 MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN A - 3 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A - 4 MAIN HOUSE ROOF PLAN A - 5 NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS A - 6 EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS A - 7 MAIN HOUSE SECTIONS A - 8 BASEMENT SECTIONS A - 9 SECOND UNIT A - 10 SECOND UNIT SECTIONS A - 11 SECOND UNIT ELEVATIONS A - 12 TENNIS HOUSE A - 13 TENNIS HOUSE ELEVATIONS A - 14 TENNIS COURT PLAN A - 15 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A - 16 GARAGE SECTIONS A - 17 GARAGE ELEVATIONS A - 18 GARAGE ELEVATIONS A - 19 POOL PLAN/ELEVATIONS A - 20 SECTION D A - 21 WINDOW SCHEDULE A - 22 DOOR SCHEDULE A - 23 INTERIOR DETAILS A - 24 EXTERIOR DETAILS A - 25 EXTERIOR DETAILS CONT. A - 26 KOI POND SECTION A - 27 SITE LINE X SECTION EXHIBIT 1 CONVEX AREA PLAN SHEET 1 GRADING PLAN COVER SHEET SHEET 2 GRADING PLAN OVERALL SITE PLAN SHEET 3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 5 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 6 CROSS SECTIONS SHEET 7 CROSS SECTIONS SHEET 8 DETAIL SHEET CHARALS HAAGAN 33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU, CA 90265 GEOLOGIST JAKE HOLT LANDPHASES INC. 5158 COCHRAN STREET SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063 (805)522-5174 GEOTECHNICAL ENG. CIVIL ENGINEER KEVIN POFFENBARGER EPD CONSULTANTS 20722 MAIN STREET CARSON, CA 90745 (805)522-5174 EXT.101 DESIGNER SCALE: 1" = 100' DESCRIPTION: 6,567 SQ. FT. SFR WITH 5,050 SQ. FT. DECK, 397 SQ. FT. BASEMENT, 698 SQ. FT. POOL, 538 SQ. FT. KOI POND, DETACHED 720 SQUARE FOOT SECOND UNIT WITH 466 SQ. FT. DECK, 1,375 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, 7,194 SQUARE FOOT TENNIS COURT, 412 SQUARE FOOT TENNIS CABANA, AND NEW OWTS SYSTEM. SITE INFORMATION: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APN: 4473-021-006 ZONING: RR-2 OCCUPANCY: SFR CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB VHFHSZ YES SIZE OF LOT (ACRES) 4.1 ACRES FIRE FLOW BASED ON THE FIRE- FLOW CALC. AREA: 2,500 GPM REDUCTION FOR THE FIRE SPRINKLERS (MAX 50%): 1,250 GPM TOTAL FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: 1,250 GPM UNENCLOSED COVERED AREAS: NONE ARE PROPOSED BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS: LOT WIDTH 327' LOT DEPTH 567' GROSS/NET LOT AREA 178,596 SQ FT - 1:1 11,055 = 167,541 TOTAL FRONT YARD SETBACK 65' MIN / ACTUAL 157' REAR YARD SETBACK 85' MIN / ACTUAL 320' SIDE YARD SETBACK 15% 49' MIN EAST / 160' ACTUAL EAST SIDE YARD SET BACK 10% 33' MIN WEST / 50' ACTUAL WEST PROPOSED SFR 6,567 SQ FT PROPOSED GROSS BASEMENT 1,723 SQ FT PROPOSED BASEMENT WITH CALCULATED TDSF 397 SQ FT PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE 1,375 SQ FT PROPOSED SECOND UNIT 720 SQ FT PROPOSED TENNIS CABANA 412 SQ FT PROPOSED POOL & SPA 698 SQ FT PROPOSED PARKING COVERED - 6, UNCOVERED - 2 PROPOSED TDSF 9,471 SQ FT/ 10,166MAX ALLOWED IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE 23,900 SQ FT/25,000 MAX ALLOWED APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2016 EDITION CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2019 EDITION SEPARATE PERMIT TO BE PROVIDED FOR SPRINKLERS A - 0 CAL WEST GEOTECHNICAL LENORD LISTON 8889 PIERCE COURT #101 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 (818)991-7148 7/3/2022 Exhibit C 52 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC OCEAN 50' TOP OF BLUFF SET BACK LINE 33' SIDE YARD SET BACK 49' SIDE YARD SET BACK 65' MIN FRONT YARD SET BACK TOP OF COASTAL BLUFF LOT DEPTH - 567'-0" MID POINT LOT WIDTH - 327'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. 85' REAR YARD SET BACK P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT EXISTING STEPS

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30' A - 1 KEY: FIRE FIGHTER ACCESS: 5' WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAYS ON GRADE AT 0% SLOPE JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: PERMEABLE COVERAGE: IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE: HAR-TRU TENNIS COURT MATERIAL: (PERMEABLE COVERAGE) IPE DECKING MATERIAL: (PERMEABLE COVERAGE) IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE: MAIN HOUSE: 6,567 SQ. FT. MAIN HOUSE DECK: 2,570 SQ. FT. SECOND UNIT: 720 SQ. FT. GARAGE: 1,375 SQ. FT. GARAGE DRIVEWAY: 2,370 SQ. FT. TENNIS CABANA: 417 SQ. FT. FIRE ACCESS/TURNAROUND: 7,480 SQ. FT. SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS ROAD: 2,406 SQ. FT. GRAND TOTAL: 23,900 SQ. FT. 7/3/2022 20'-0" R32' Ø64' 20'-0"

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
15'-0" ENTRY FENCING:
53 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC OCEAN

EXISTING STEPS
50' TOP OF BLUFF SET BACK LINE
33' SIDE YARD SET BACK
49' SIDE YARD SET BACK
65' MIN FRONT YARD SET BACK

TOP OF COASTAL BLUFF
LOT DEPTH - 567'-0" MID POINT
LOT WIDTH - 327'-0"

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

12.0'

12.0'

12.0'

19.2'

12.0'

14.2'
200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS

SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR

WATER HEATER
TANK-LESS A-24 A - 24 #5 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS

SHUT OFF

AC COMPRESSOR BELOW
TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM

PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH
ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19
ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346

GUEST HOUSE
720 SQ. FT.

COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE
1,375 SQ. FT.
85' REAR YARD SET BACK
P
F
F
F
F
F
P
P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15%
10%
4%
2% 8% 15% 15%
2%
2%
2%
20%

12.5% 2%
20%
8%
8%
2%

POOL/SPA
698 SQ. FT.

TENNIS HOUSE
412 SQ. FT.
8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3

MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT
6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT.

KOI POND BELOW

KOI POND BELOW

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY
UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING

DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND

DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT DEMOLITION KEY: EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED:

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DEMOLITION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30' A - 1A JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
54 PRODUCTS MATERIAL MODELNUMBER TRADENAME MASTER BEDROOM HER CLOSET HER BATHROOM HIS CLOSET HIS BATHROOM BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN DINING ROOM PANTRY LIVING ROOM GUEST BEDROOM LAUNDRY ROOM ELECTRICAL CLOSET COAT CLOSET POWDER BATH 102 FF 102 FF 104 FF 106 FF 102 FF 102 FF 102 FF KOI POND KOI POND BELOW KOI POND WALKWAY D
B
A
E
D
C
A
1 1 1 1
2 3
6 7
7 7
4 SD SD
SD
SD SD SD SD FIREPLACE ANSI # 221.88 FIREPLACE ANSI # 221.88 CO CO CO CO BASEMENT STAIRS 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF FIREPLACE ANSI # 221.88 100 AMP MAIN A - 11 #13 FIREPLACE ANSI # 221.88 A - 11 #13 RETURN AIR GRILL

AC COMPRESSOR TANK-LESS WATER HEATER
B
A
C C
ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 D D
A
B
112
1 1
6 6 A - 26 #11 7 7
7 SD SD SD SD
6 6
6 6 A - 26 #11 A - 26 #11 A - 26 #11
55 EGRESS
F
F 102 FF FLOOR PLAN TDSF 6,567
POOL/SPA DECK A-18 SECTION A 34'-3" 95'-5"
75'-5" 129'-9"
55'-8"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: MAIN HOUSE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 2 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
55 B C
GYM

THEATER
BAR

GAME TABLES

WINE CELLAR

BATHROOM
92 FF A

UTILITY CLOSET
SD CO
11 BASEMENT STAIRS C B A
11 11
11 11
EGRESS BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN TDSF 397 MAIN FLOOR PLAN ABOVE MAIN FLOOR PLAN ABOVE MAIN FLOOR PLAN ABOVE 34'-4" 55'-8"
21'-8" 20'-8" 12'-8"
8" SHADED AREA INCLUDED IN FIRST FLOOR TDSF 3'-0"
4'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 3 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
56 2% IN-LINE/IN BOARD DRAINAGE 119 RH 123 RH 122 RH 119 RH 118 RH 120 RH A-23 #5 2% 2% 2% ROOF PLAN 1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER 2. ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS "A" AS SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 1505.1.1 FIRE NOTES:

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: MAIN HOUSE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 4 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
57 109 NG 106 NG 102 FG 106 FG 123 RH 120 RH BELOW GRADE BASEMENT 92 FG 105 NG 102 FG 100 NG 118 RH 119 RH 102 FG EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 10'-0" 18'-0"
17'-0"
17-0"
18' - 0"
16'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: MAIN HOUSE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 5 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
58 104 FG 106 FG 108 NG 100 NG 102 FG 118 RH 123 RH 104 FG 106 FG 108 NG 123 RH 102 FG 118 RH 100 NG BELOW GRADE BASEMENT 92 FG EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK RETAINING WALL EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 10'-0" 16'-0"
17'-0"
17'-0"
18' - 0"
18'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: MAIN HOUSE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 6 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
59 105 NG 119 RH 118 RH 102 FG Pioneer CHANEL VOLUME 92 FG 102 FG BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 MASTER BEDROOM KITCHEN DINING + LIVING ROOM BASEMENT 102 FG 104 NG 109 NG 106 FG 104 FG 119 RH 123 RH KITCHEN ENTRY/LIVING ROOM GUEST BEDROOM SECTION B SECTION A 16'-0" 10'-0"
17'-0"
17'-0"
17'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: MAIN HOUSE SECTIONS SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 7 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
60 GYM

THEATER
BAR

GAME TABLES

WINE CELLAR

BATHROOM
92 FF
C

UTILITY CLOSET

SD CO BASEMENT STAIRS
C
A
EGRESS
A
11 11
11 11
11 92 FG 102 FG 118 RH 100 NG MASTER BEDROOM THEATER BASEMENT BAR MAIN HOUSE BASEMENT 92 FG 119 RH 102 NG/FG MASTER BEDROOM BASEMENT GYM BASEMENT THEATRE ROOM MAIN HOUSE BASEMENT BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN TDSF 397 55'-8" SECTION A
17'-0" 10'-0" 21'-8" 34'-0" 55'-8" 34'-11" SECTION C 34'-4" SHADED AREA INCLUDED IN FIRST FLOOR TDSF 3'-0" 4'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: BASEMENT SCALE: 316" = 1' - 0" A - 8 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
61 TRADENAME PRODUCTS MATERIAL MODELNUMBER 82 FF KITCHEN BEDROOM BATHROOM CLOSET/STORAGE A G A B 7 B 10 SD B A A 82 FF WALKWAY 82 FF WALKWAY 82 FF 11 DECK 82 FF B 8 2% 2% IN-LINE/IN BOARD DRAINAGE A-23 #5 99 RH 98 RH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MID POINT LOT WIDTH - 327'-0" 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT SECOND UNIT FLOOR PLAN TDSF 720 SECOND UNIT ROOF PLAN GUEST HOUSE 18'-10"
17'-1" 1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER 2. ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS "A" AS SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 1505.1.1 FIRE NOTES:

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SECOND UNIT SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 9 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected] 47'-4"
10'-5"
62 98 RH 84 NG 82 FG 82 FG 84 NG 99 RH SECTION A SECTION B 16'-11"
16'-0"
16'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SECOND UNIT SECTIONS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 10
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
63 98 RH 82 FG 84 NG 99 RH 82 FG 82 FG 86 NG 99 RH 92 NG 99 RH 82 FG 84 NG EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK RETAINING WALL SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 17'-0"
17'-0"
16'-11"
16'-0"
16'-0"
17'-2"
16'-0"
18'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SECOND UNIT ELEVATIONS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 11
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
64 129 RH 111 NG 118 FG UNCOVERED VIEWING DECK 114 NG BAR ENTERTAINMENT CENTER 118 FF 7 A B B UNCOVERED VIEWING DECK 118 FF A H H 114 NG 129 RH Pioneer CHANEL VOLUME 118 FG 113 NG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MID POINT 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT TENNIS HOUSE FLOOR PLAN TDSF 412 SECTION A TENNIS HOUSE SECTION B 11'-0" 9'-4" 30'-8" 40'-0" ROOF
10'-0"
11'-0"
16'-0"
7'-0"
17'-0" 40'-0"
11'-4" 10'-0"
21'-4"
15'-0"
15'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: TENNIS HOUSE SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 12 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
65 110 NG 128 RH 118 FG 111 NG 129 RH Pioneer CHANEL VOLUME 114 NG 118 FG 113 NG 129 RH 110 NG 113 NG UNCOVERED VIEWING DECK 118 NG 128 RH 111 NG 118 FG UNCOVERED VIEWING DECK EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK RETAINING WALL 2 12 :1 IN-LINE/IN BOARD DRAINAGE 129 RH A-23 #5 128 RH 2 12 :1 129 RH 128 RH SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 10'-0" 9'-4" 30'-8" 40'-0"
11'-0" ROOF PLAN
11'-0"
18'-0"
17'-0" 1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER 2. ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS "A" AS SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 1505.1.1 FIRE NOTES:
18'-0"
16'-0"
8'-0"
15'-0"
17'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: TENNIS HOUSE SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 13 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
66 A - 24 #5 118 FF 118 FF A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MID POINT 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT TENNIS COURT FLOOR PLAN 36'-0" 78'-0" 120'-0" TENNIS COURT

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: TENNIS COURT SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 14 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
67 116 FF 10
9 A
B
H
B
A
H
H
H
H
9 9

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MID POINT

12.0'

12.0'

12.0'

19.2'

12.0'

14.2'
200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS

SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR

WATER HEATER
TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS

SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW
TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM

PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH
ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19
ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346

GUEST HOUSE
720 SQ. FT.

COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE
1,375 SQ. FT. P
F
F
F
F
F
P
P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15%
10%
4%
2% 8% 15% 15%
2%
2%
2%
20%

12.5% 2%
20%
8%
8%
2%

POOL/SPA
698 SQ. FT.

TENNIS HOUSE
412 SQ. FT.
8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3

MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT
6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT.KOI POND BELOW

KOI POND BELOW

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY

PERMEABLE WALKWAY
UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING

DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND

DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND

TENNIS COURT
EXISTING STEPS GARAGE FLOOR PLAN TDSF 1,375 GARAGE16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 55'-0" 1'-6" 25'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: GARAGE SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 15
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
68 130 RH 116 FG/NG 113 NG 129 RH 116 FG 115 NG 2% 2% IN-LINE/IN BOARD DRAINAGE 129 RH 130 RH A-23 #5 SECTION A SECTION B 13' GARAGE ROOF PLAN 25'-0" 14'-0"
13'-0" 1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER 2. ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS "A" AS SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 1505.1.1 FIRE NOTES:
16'-0"
14'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: GARAGE SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 16 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
69 116 NG 130 RH 116 NG/FG 113 NG 129 RH 116 FG 130 RH 113 NG EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK RETAINING WALL EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 14'-0"
16'-0"
14'-0"
17'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: GARAGE ELEVATIONS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 17
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
70 129 RH 113 NG 116 FG 113 NG116 FG 130 RH 115 NG EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK RETAINING WALL SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1'-6" 16'-0" 16'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 16'-0" 55'-0" 15'-0" 1'-6"
13'-0"
16'-0"
14'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: GARAGE ELEVATIONS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 18
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
71 5'x8' POOL EQUIPMENT WITH SURROUNDING WOOD FENCING POOL SPA D D OVERFLOW CATCHMENT BASIN *NO ROOF STRUCTURE

IN WOOD ENCLOSURE
5'x8' POOL EQUIPMENT CONCRETE DECK SWIMMING POOL 32' X 19' 608 SQ. FT. SPA 10' X 9' 90 SQ. FT. STAIRS

OVERFLOW WATER
FEATURE ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 MAIN HOUSE A - 24 #6 CABO SEATING AREA 5' x 10' EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING WITH TYVEK OVER 58" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UL 790/UL 263 CONCRETE DECK FLOOR PLAN SECTION D 9'-0" 9'-0" 32'-0"
19'-0"
35'-9" 98'-8"
3'-4"
7"
3'-6"
6'-8" 1. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCHARGE POOL OR SPA WATER FEATURE WATERS TO A STREET, DRAINAGE COURSE OR STORM DRAIN PER MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: POOL/SPA SECTION SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 19 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
72 104 FG 106 FG 108 NG 100 NG 102 FG 123 RH 5'x8' POOL EQUIPMENT WITH SURROUNDING WOOD FENCING POOL SPA 118 RH SECTION D 16'-0" 32'-0" 9'-0" 36'-8"
3'-6"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SECTION D SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 20
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
73 WINDOW SCHEDULE WIDTH HEIGHT FRAME TYPE GLAZING GLASS SYMBOL MANUFACTURER MODEL QUANTITY 5'- 0" 8'- 0" Aluminum Dual Low E TEMPERED 3'- 6" 6'- 0" 6'- 7" 3' - 11" SERIES 3800 - T 4'- 0" 2'- 0" 5488 ABCDEFG 5'- 6" 6'- 0" 1 9'- 6" 3'- 8" 2 FUNCTION EXTERIOR- CASEMENT EXTERIOR- FIXED 8' 5' 6'-0" 3'-6" 3'-11" 6'-7" 2' 4'-0" 9'-11" 11'-9 14" 2' 4' 5'-6" 6' 4' 10'-7" 3'-8" 9'-6" 3'- 6" 2' - 6" 3'-10" 1'-10" FLEETWOOD 5 H 19 FIXED 2'-6" 3'-6" 1'-10" 3'-10" 10'-6" 8'-7" SERIES 450 - T A B C D E F G CASEMENT CASEMENT FIXED FIXED CASEMENT FIXED SMOKE DETECTOR SD 12 CO SMOKE DETECTOR/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR 5 NOTES MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 N/A N/A MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 SERIES 450 - T SERIES 450 - T N/A N/A N/A N/A FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD SERIES 3800 - T SERIES 3800 - T SERIES 3800 - T SERIES 3800 - T TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E Aluminum Dual Low E N/A N/A N/A N/A EXTERIOR- CASEMENT EXTERIOR- CASEMENT EXTERIOR- FIXED INTERIOR- FIXED EXTERIOR- FIXED EXTERIOR- FIXED FIXED H MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS, GLAZED DOORS, AND GLAZED OPENINGS WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE OF MULTI PANE GLAZING UNITS WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE 2. EXTERIOR DOOR ASSEMBLIES SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING A) THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL B) SOLID CORE WOOD HAVING STILES AND RAILS NOT LESS THAN 1 38" THICK WITH RAISED PANELS THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 1 14" THICK C) MIN. 20 MINUTE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252 D) CONFORM TO PERFORMANCE STANDARD SFM 12-7A-1 FIRE NOTES:

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: WINDOW SCHEDULE SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 21 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
74 DOOR SCHEDULE WIDTH HEIGHT FUNCTION FRAME MATERIAL GLAZING GLASS MANUFACTURER MODEL QUANTITY 12' - 0" 10' - 0" EXTERIOR - MULTI SLIDER Dual Low E TEMPERED FLEETWOOD 8' - 0" 6' - 0" EXTERIOR - HINGED 8' - 0" 3' - 6" TBD 1234 821127 56 3' - 6" 3' - 0" 9 N/A 78 MULTI SLIDING WITH GLASS LITES HINGED WITH GLASS LITE HINGED SOLID WOOD CORE 12' - 0" Aluminum 3' - 6" 7' - 0" 91011 12 SERIES 3070 - T GARAGE DOOR WITH GLASS LITES Aluminum 3' - 6" 7' - 0" SOLID CORE WALNUT WOOD 5 SYMBOL 1 2 8 3 4 5 6 7 HINGED SOLID WOOD CORE MULTI SLIDING WITH GLASS LITES MULTI SLIDING WITH GLASS LITES MULTI SLIDING WITH GLASS LITES HINGED WITH GLASS LITES POCKET SOLID WOOD CORE HINGED SOLID WOOD CORE EXTERIOR - MULTI SLIDER EXTERIOR - MULTI SLIDER EXTERIOR - MULTI SLIDER EXTERIOR - HINGED INTERIOR - HINGED INTERIOR - HINGED EXTERIOR - HINGED INTERIOR - POCKET NOTES MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 SERIES 3070 - T SERIES 3070 - T SERIES 3070 - T SERIES 3070 - T SERIES 3900 - T FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD TBD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD FLEETWOOD TBD TBD MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 MEETS CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R337.8 TEMPERED TEMPERED N/A TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dual Low E Dual Low E Dual Low E Dual Low E Dual Low E Dual Low E 9 10 11 SOLID CORE WALNUT WOOD SOLID CORE WALNUT WOOD Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum SOLID CORE WOOD Aluminum 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 16' - 0" 8' - 0" EXTERIOR - GARAGE DOOR Aluminum Dual Low E TEMPERED TBD 3 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS, GLAZED DOORS, AND GLAZED OPENINGS WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE OF MULTI PANE GLAZING UNITS WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE 2. EXTERIOR DOOR ASSEMBLIES SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING A) THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL B) SOLID CORE WOOD HAVING STILES AND RAILS NOT LESS THAN 1 38" THICK WITH RAISED PANELS THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 1 14" THICK C) MIN. 20 MINUTE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252 D) CONFORM TO PERFORMANCE STANDARD SFM 12-7A-1 FIRE NOTES:

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DOOR SCHEDULE SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 22 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
75 INTERIOR WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE METAL FLASHING 78" STUCCO 4" METAL POST NON COMBUSTIBLE IPE WOOD DECKING MATERIAL 6" POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE WALL 58" DRYWALL FACIA 2X6 T + G SPRUCE 58" TYPE-X GYPSUM BOARD 34" CDX SHEATHING CLASS "A" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 3X FIRE BLOCK RIGID INSULATION CONCRETE FOUNDATION SILL PLATE INSULATION 58" GYPSUM BOARD EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER TAILS SILL PLATE INSULATION 58" GYPSUM BOARD DOUBLE TOP PLATE 58" GYPSUM BOARD CEILING IPE WOOD SIDING ON WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER INTERIOR EXTERIOR DENSGLASS FIRE GAURD SHEATHING SILL PLATE INSULATION 58" GYPSUM BOARD DOUBLE TOP PLATE 58" GYPSUM BOARD CEILING 78" STUCCO ON METAL LATH OVER WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER ON 12 PLYWOOD SHEATHING INTERIOR EXTERIOR CLASS "A" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF METAL FACIA EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER TAILS MESH WIRE BALL STRAINER FIRE RATED GLASS ICC ESR-3269 1 ROOF EAVE DETAIL 2 CANTILEVER DECK DETAIL 3 EXTERIOR WALL SEPARATION DETAIL (WOOD) 4 EXTERIOR WALL SEPARATION DETAIL (STUCCO) 5 CONCEALED GUTTER DETAIL 6 GLASS RAILING DETAIL 3"
2'-10"
3" 2"
3'-6"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DETAILS SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 23 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
76 DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY CHAIN LINK FENCE TENSION BAND TENSION BAR POST CAP CORNER/END POST 3" METAL POST 12 " MATTE BLACK METAL FENCE 12" MATTE BLACK METAL ENTRANCE DOOR 12 " MATTE BLACK METAL ENTRANCE GATE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE PILASTER 4" METAL POST T+G IPE WOOD SIDING 2 ENTRANCE GATE/WALL SOUTH ELEVATION 4 TENNIS FENCE DETAIL 10'-0" 6 POOL + EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE DETAIL 6'-0"
6" 8'-0"
6'-0" 1 ENTRANCE GATE/WALL PLAN 1'-0" 13'-0" 3'-10" 3 ENTRANCE WALKWAY DOOR DETAIL 13'-0" 3'-10" 5 RETAINING WALL DETAIL +/- 6'-0" +/- 4'-0"

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DETAILS SCALE: 14 " = 1' - 0" A - 24 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022
5'-8"

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
5'-10" 4'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0" 3A METAL GATE PATTERN DETAIL 12 " 3" 10" 10" 3" 12
" 14"
14" 1'-0" 4'-6"
77 112 NG/FG 106 NG 108 FG 110 FG 102 NG/FG GROUND-SCAPE MATERIAL SCHEDULE 2X6 IPE WOOD SIDING/DECKING MATERIAL POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE GRASS CONCRETE PAVERS 6 ENTRY PATHWAY SECTION
8 PATHWAY DETAIL 4'-0"
4'-0"
7 SITE PATHWAY SECTION

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DETAILS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 25
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
78 KOI POND EXTERIOR KOI POND INTERIOR CONCRETE PATHWAY CONCRETE SUPPORTS EXTERIOR WALL INTERIOR WALL KOI POND EXTERIOR KOI POND INTERIOR CONCRETE PATHWAY CONCRETE SUPPORTS 104 FG 106 FG 108 NG 123 RH 102 FG 119 RH 100 NG 10 KOI POND DETAIL 14'-0" 4" 5'-0"
1'-4" KOI POND DETAIL MAIN HOUSE - SECTION D
9 HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: DETAILS SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 26
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
79 132 SL (STREET LEVEL) 123 RH 106 FF 116 FF 130 RH 116 FF (GARAGE) 130 RH (GARAGE) 123 RH (MAIN HOUSE) 106 FF (MAIN HOUSE) GARAGE MAIN HOUSE SITE LINE CROSS SECTION

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: SITE LINE CROSS SECTION SCALE:
14 " = 1' - 0" A - 27
JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
80 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PACIFIC OCEAN 50' TOP OF BLUFF SET BACK LINE 33' SIDE YARD SET BACK 49' SIDE YARD SET BACK 65' MIN FRONT YARD SET BACK TOP OF COASTAL BLUFF LOT DEPTH - 567'-0" MID POINT LOT WIDTH - 327'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 19.2' 12.0' 14.2' 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR WATER HEATER TANK-LESS A-24 #6 A-25 A - 24 #5 #6 A-25 #7 A-25 #6 A-25 SECTION A A-19 200 AMP MAIN SEISMIC GAS SHUT OFF AC COMPRESSOR BELOW TANK-LESS WATER HEATER #6 A-25 #10 A-26 #10 A-26 SEPTIC SYSTEM PAVED ROAD/ENTRY FROM PCH ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 "BLUFF EDGE" SEPTIC SYSTEM #6 A-24 SECTION A A-19 ELECTRICAL POOL COVER TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE: ASTM Standard F1346 GUEST HOUSE 720 SQ. FT. COVERED - 6 CAR GARAGE 1,375 SQ. FT. 85' REAR YARD SET BACK P F F F F F P P A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 ENTRY FENCING A - 24 #1-3 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT 6" x 4" x 2.5" 2% GRADE 15% 10% 4% 2% 8% 15% 15% 2% 2% 2% 20% 12.5% 2% 20% 8% 8% 2% POOL/SPA 698 SQ. FT. TENNIS HOUSE 412 SQ. FT. 8% A - 24 #5 A - 24 #5 A - 24 #4 SECTION: ENTRY FENCING DETAIL SEE A-24 #1-3 MAIN HOUSE/BASEMENT 6,567 SQ. FT. + 397 SQ. FT. KOI POND BELOW KOI POND BELOW PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY PERMEABLE WALKWAY UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND DECK WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER VARIANCE SLOPES AND FOUNDED ON FLAT LAND TENNIS COURT EXISTING STEPS CONVEX SQUARE AREA: 25,379 SQ. FT.

HAAGAN HOUSE
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265 TITLE: DATE: CONVEX AREA PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30' EXHIBIT 1 JOB TITLE: CDP SUBMITTAL: 7/3/2022

WILDMAN DESIGN GROUP
MALIBU, CA 90265
PHONE: (323)-403-2240
[email protected]
81

Page 1 of 19 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: July 7, 2022 Meeting date: July 18, 2022 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 19-073 and Demolition Permit No. 22- 008 - An application to construct a new one-story, single-family residence and associated development (Continued from June 6, 2022) Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, within the appealable coastal zone
Owner: Charals Haagan
APN: 4473-021-006
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-073 for construction of a new one-story, 6,567 square foot single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement, 1,375 square foot detached garage, 720 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit, tennis court, 417 square foot tennis cabana, swimming pool, spa, grading, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Demolition Permit (DP) No. 22-008 to demolish an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping located in the Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) zoning district located at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Haagan).

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

This item was originally scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on June 6, 2022.

The day of the hearing, staff received correspondence from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) Planning Commission
Meeting
07-18-22
Item

4.A.

Exhibit D
82

Page 2 of 19 ends

regarding the project. CCC staff submitted correspondence regarding the blufftop setback determination and requested more information as to how the project conforms to LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 10.4(D)(1) and (2). Section G, Shoreline and Bluff Development, of this report provides further details regarding how the proposed project conforms to Section 10.4(D)(1) and (2) of the LIP.

MRCA representative submitted correspondence disagreeing with the assertion that adequate public access to the beach exists nearby and requesting the Planning Commission require a lateral easement as a condition of approval. Currently, there are existing lateral accessways on four adjacent properties including 33730 Pacific Coast Highway which is immediately adjacent to the subject property to the west. In addition, Nicholas Canyon Beach Road is within approximately 800 feet of the subject property, providing access to Nicholas Canyon Beach. As discussed in Section A of this report, adequate public access exists adjacent to this property and therefore the proposed project does not require an additional lateral access easement in order to conform to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976. In addition, the property owner has indicated that they would not be willing to offer a lateral access easement on the subject property.

Project Overview
The project site is a vacant blufftop parcel totaling approximately 4.1 acres in size. The project includes the construction of a new one-story single-family residence and associated development (Attachment 2 – Project Plans). The project does not include any discretionary requests.

Code Violation (CV) No. 22-008 is currently open on the subject parcel due to unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading, paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants, and grasses for nursery-type displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH. The applicant has applied for a demolition permit to demolish the driveway as it was constructed without permits and does not meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)’s standards for driveway width. The unpermitted chain-link gates and fences are proposed to be replaced with a fence in compliance with LIP standards. The non-native plantings and Eucalyptus trees are proposed to be removed and any other existing vegetation above the road grade within the view corridor is conditioned to be trimmed down or removed so as to not project above road grade elevation. In addition, two sets of unpermitted stairs are present on the eastern side of the subject parcel. The applicant has stated that the stairs were installed prior to 1972. The current application includes the demolition and removal of the unpermitted development which will address the outstanding violation. Once the CDP is approved and upon final inspection after the demolition and removal of the unpermitted development, the code violation case will be resolved.

As later described in more detail, grading also took place sometime between 1928 and 1952. This grading resulted in a amphitheater-shaped landform and several driveways. 83

Page 3 of 19 ends

The project geotechnical engineer notes that this grading occurred to create a set for a movie. It is unknown whether this grading took place without the benefit of permits since several Los Angeles County records were lost during the City’s transition to cityhood. A code enforcement case was not opened for the grading that occurred prior to 1952. It has been the City’s policy that development that took place prior to 1991 (City incorporation) where no evidence has been found that the work took place without the proper approvals/ permits, the City would not retroactively open a code enforcement case and the work is presumed legal, non-conforming.

The project’s second residential unit is proposed on an existing dirt driveway surrounding by a manufactured slopes to the north and south. Staff confirmed that the driveway was there before 1993 and it appears in aerial photographs since 1952. A 1928 aerial photograph provided by the project geotechnical engineer also shows that the bluff was narrow prior to the grading that took place later. As a result, the amphitheater-shaped landform is a manufactured slope and so is the driveway where the second unit is proposed. The decks for both the primary structure and second unit are proposed to be founded on land with slopes less than 4 to 1 and be cantilevered over the adjacent slopes which are 2.5 to 1. No new development is proposed on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 over existing topography.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
As shown in Figure 1, the subject property is located on the seaward side of PCH between Nicholas Canyon Beach and El Sol County Beach. The site’s topography gradually descends from PCH. The property also includes steep slopes to the east and south. The easterly slopes are characterized as canyon slopes because there is a drainage course generally following the easterly property line. The southerly slopes are characterized as a coastal bluff and grading that took place prior to 1952.

The applicant’s consulting engineer produced a report that determined the location of the top of bluff in the southwestern portion of the property. In their report, it was determined that a significant amount of grading had been performed within the southern portion of the site in order to construct an amphitheater-shaped pad area and associated access path/driveway. Based on available aerial photographs, the grading took place sometime between 1928 and 1952. The grading, reportedly, was for a film shoot occurring on the property. Based on site observations and mapping, it appears the grading consisted primarily of cutting but also appears to have involved the placement or casting of fill materials over the face of the bluff. This grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photographs from 1928. The interpreted location of the 1928 top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback.

As shown in Figure 1 below, the blue line represents the current top of bluff location which was artificially created due to the grading mentioned above. The line is red is the location of the natural top of bluff that was present before the grading that took place prior to 1952. 84

Page 4 of 19 ends

The applicant has utilized the more restrictive, original location of the top of bluff when calculating the setback and siting the proposed structures.

Figure 1: Natural and Artificial Coastal Bluffs
Source: Land Phases – Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study, 3/26/2020 Current top
of bluff
Natural/interpreted
top of bluff
100-year bluff
retreat setback
line
50 foot setback from
natural/interpreted
top of bluff
85

Page 5 of 19 ends

Figure 2: Aerial Photograph and Interpreted Top of Coastal Bluff Source: City GIS
Table 1 below provides a list of the immediately adjacent land uses. The property is bordered by PCH to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. To the east and west are properties developed with single-family residences under the same zoning as the subject property. Across the street PCH from the subject property is a property zoned Commercial Recreation (CR) and is used as a Nature Trust of the Santa Monica Mountains with multiple smaller buildings.
86

Page 6 of 19 ends

Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Address Lot Size Zoning Land Use
North 33905 PCH 98.88 acres CR* Nature Trust
South N/A – Pacific Ocean N/A N/A N/A
West 33730 PCH 0.84 acre RR-2 Single-Family Residence
33730 PCH 0.64 acre RR-2 Single-Family Residence
East 33634 PCH 1.99 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence
Table 2 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area of the subject parcel.

Table 2 – Total Property Data
Lot Depth 567 feet
Lot Width 327 feet
Gross Lot Area 178,598 square feet (4.1 acres)
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes 11,055 square feet
Net Lot Area 167,541 square feet (3.85 acres)
*Net Lot Area = Gross Lot Area minus the area of access easements and 1 to 1 slopes.

Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows:
a. 6,567 square foot single-family residence;
b. 1,723 square foot basement1
c. 5,050 square foot deck;
d. 1,375 square foot detached garage;
e. 720 square foot second unit;
f. 466 square foot deck;
g. Total development square footage (TDSF) for the project is 9,471 square feet; h. Swimming pool and spa;
i. 7,194 square foot tennis court and fencing;
j. 412 square foot tennis cabana;
k. Retaining walls (not to exceed six feet in height);
l. OWTS;
m. Landscaping;
n. Grading; and
o. DP No. 22-008 for removal of unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading and paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants and grasses for nurserytype displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH.
1 The initial 1,000 square feet of a basement area is not counted towards TDSF and only half the amount of the balance is counted. The total amount of basement area counted towards TDSF is 362 square feet. 87

Page 7 of 19 ends

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains provisions to carry out the policies of the LUP to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere.

There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) OWTS. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section.

The nine remaining LIP chapters contain required findings: 1) Coastal Development Permit; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division. For the reasons described in this report, only findings in the following chapters are applicable to the proposed project:

Coastal Development Permit, Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Development, Hazards and Shoreline and Bluff Development.
2 These chapters are discussed in the LIP
Findings section of this report.

The findings required by MMC Section 17.70.060 for the Demolition Permit are discussed following the LCP analysis.

LIP Conformance Analysis
The proposed project has been reviewed by the Planning Department, City coastal engineer consultant reviewers, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, LACFD and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) (Attachment 4 – Department Review Sheets). The project, as proposed and conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The proposed project is subject to development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3 provides a summary and indicates the proposed project meets those standards and has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies with the inclusion of the discretionary requests. 2 The ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, and Public Access findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed project.
88

Page 8 of 19 ends

Table 3 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/ Required Proposed Comments SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard (20%) 65 157 Complies
Rear Yard 85 320 Complies
Side Yard (Minimum 10%) 33 50 Complies
Side Yard (Cumulative 25%) 49 160 Complies
Bluff-top 50 50 Complies

PARKING SPACES
Enclosed (10 ft. x 18 ft.) 2 2 Complies
Unenclosed (10 ft. x 18 ft.) 2 2 Complies
Second Unit 1 1 (Enclosed) Complies
Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) (sq. ft.)
TDSF 10,166 9,471 Complies
Single-Family Residence 6,567
Basement 397
Detached Garage 1,375
Second Unit 720
Tennis Cabana 412
HEIGHT (ft.)
Single-Family Residence 18 18 Complies
Detached Garage 17 18 Complies
Second Unit 17 18 Complies
Tennis Cabana 18 18 Complies
IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE (sq.ft.) 25,000 23,905 Complies
NON-EXEMPT GRADING (cu.yd.) 1,000 1,000 Complies
CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES 4 to 1 and flatter 4 to 1 and
flatter Complies

FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES
Retaining Walls 6 ft. max. 12 ft.
cumulative
6 ft. max. 12 ft.
cumulative
Complies
Front Yard
Impermeable N/A N/A Complies
Permeable 6 ft 5 ft. 10 in. Complies
Rear & Side Yard N/A N/A Complies
Tennis Court Fence 12 ft 10 ft Complies
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project conforms to the development standards as set forth under LIP Chapter 3, excepting the rear and side yard setbacks and the maximum allowed TDSF and impermeable coverage. The proposed one-story residence and 89

Page 9 of 19 ends

detached structures have been sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views because they will not extend higher than the road grade adjacent to the project site. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies.

Site Lighting
The proposed project does not include outdoor lighting. Therefore, the provisions of LIP Sections 4.6.2 and 6.5(G) do not apply.

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards for a residential parcel. As summarized in Table 4 and on the Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate on the grading plan cover sheet in Attachment 2, the amount of non-exempt grading is 1,000 cubic yards, which is less than the maximum allowable. The project complies with the grading requirements set forth under LIP Section 8.3.

Table 4 – LCP Grading Conformance
Exempt** Non- R&R Exempt Remedial Total * Understructure Safety*** Cut 1,907 1,721 151 672 0 4,451
Fill 1,907 244 168 328 0 2,647
Total 3,814 1,965 319 1,000 0 7,098
Import 0 0 17 0 0 0
Export 0 1,477 0 344 0 1,804
All quantities listed in cubic yards unless otherwise noted *R&R= Removal and Re-compaction
**Exempt grading includes all R&R, understructure and safety grading. ***Safety grading is the incremental grading required for Fire Department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads, and turnarounds and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the LACFD).

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. A Phase I Archaeological Study was prepared by Robert J.

Wlodarski of the Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team (H.E.A.R.T.) in September 2018. The study concluded that the project area yielded no cultural resources, either prehistoric or historic within the parcel. Any modification to the area surveyed as part of the study will have no adverse effect on known cultural resources.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic 90

Page 10 of 19 ends

testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection and requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board because the property is located in an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an ASBS as part of the California Ocean Plan. Standard conditions of approval include the implementation of approved storm water management plans during construction activities and to manage runoff from the development, including recordation of a water quality mitigation plan, and best management practices in compliance with ASBS standards. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The project includes an OWTS to serve the proposed development. The OWTS has been reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator and found to meet the minimum requirements of the LCP and MMC. The proposed OWTS has been approved for installation by the City Environmental Health Administrator having met all applicable requirements. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution, which require continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of onsite facilities.

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

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

The proposed project is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, 91

Page 11 of 19 ends

visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

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

The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, the proposed project and related construction activities are not anticipated to interfere with the public’s right to access the coast as no development is proposed on the sand. Moreover, adequate public access exists nearby at Nicolas Canyon County Beach and El Sol County Beach, which are approximately 800 feet to the west and 1,200 feet to the east, respectively.

Therefore, adequate public access exists nearby and the project conforms to the public access and recreation polices of the Coastal Act.

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

This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the proposed project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources.

Alternative Project(s) — A reduced project alternative could be proposed on the project site. Should the footprint be reduced, the direct land disturbance as a result of construction would be reduced. However, the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable TDSF, impermeable coverage, and height limitations of the LCP. A smaller project may reduce the development area of the proposed project; however, a development area reduction is not expected to offer any environmental advantages. Due to the parcel’s natural topography and top of bluff setback, re-siting the development would result in construction on slopes greater than 2.5 to 1. The project is proposed without any discretionary requests for deviating from the code requirements. As designed, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of both the MMC and LCP. In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative project would offer any environmental advantages.

Proposed Project — The proposed project consists of a new single-family residence, secondary dwelling unit, swimming pool, tennis court, tennis cabana, and detached garage, all of which are permitted uses within the RR-2 zoning designation. The scope of work that is proposed has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the Planning Department, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department, and meets the City’s residential development policies. The proposed project is sited on relatively flat slopes and would create conforming structures that comply with the top of bluff setback, affording the least amount of visual impact and minimizing the potential impacts to the natural topography. Therefore, the project, as proposed, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
92

Page 12 of 19 ends

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

The subject property is not located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.

B. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As stated in Section A, Finding 4, the subject property does not contain any area of designated ESHA or stream. Therefore, the findings of LIP Section 4.7.6 are not applicable.

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

D. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any lot that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. The subject property is located abuts PCH and the proposed development will be visible from PCH, an LCP-designated scenic highway. Therefore, the following findings in LIP Section 6.4(A) apply to the proposed project.

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

The subject property abuts PCH, which is an LCP-designated scenic highway. As stated earlier, the proposed one-story residence and detached structures have been sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views because they will not extend higher than 18 feet and will preserve a view corridor. Moreover, pursuant to LIP Section (6.5)(E)(2), 20 percent of the site’s lineal frontage will be maintained as a contiguous view corridor along the eastern side of the property to accommodate a proposed tennis court in the northwestern portion of the property.

The closest mapped trail, the Coastal Slope Trail, is approximately one mile north of the subject property. While not mapped, the California Coastal Trail is known to be located along the coast. The Coastal Slope Trail is at a significantly higher elevation than the proposed project and the siting of the proposed structure in the front half of the lot minimizes any potential visual impact. As the proposed development will maintain the 93

Page 13 of 19 ends

required 50-foot bluff setback and at heights not to exceed 18 feet, the proposed buildings are not expected to be prominent as viewed from the beach as only the top portions of the residence and second unit will be visible. Therefore, the project, as proposed will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

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

As discussed in Finding 1, the project will not result in significant adverse scenic or visual impacts and will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

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

As previously stated in Section A, Finding 3, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

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

The subject parcel’s topography, setbacks and height restrictions limit a feasible alternative to the siting of the proposed development. The structure is below the roadway elevation, meeting the LIP standard for new development on parcels located on the ocean side of public roads. As such, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

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

The proposed project’s location is sited in the only area of the subject parcel that minimizes potential impacts to scenic and visual resources. As such, the proposed project is in conformance with the sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.

E. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
The proposed project does not include a land division or multi-family development.

Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 are not applicable.

F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development 94

Page 14 of 19 ends

located in or near an area subject to these hazards. The project has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department, and has been reviewed and approved for conformance with all relevant policies and regulations of the LCP and MMC. Based on review of the project and site, no geological hazards are present on site. In addition, the fire hazard of the property will not be increased.

The Planning Department, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, and City Public Works Department analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 and found the project consistent with the LCP. The required findings are made as follows:

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

The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports and addenda prepared by CalWest Geotechnical and Land Phases, Inc. These reports are on file at City Hall. The reports evaluate site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. Potential hazards analyzed include geologic, seismic and fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, groundwater, tsunami, and flood and fire hazards. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant has recommended the use of deepened and/or conventional foundations for support of the proposed structures. The use of deepened foundations (i.e. piles) would be required for those structures located close to descending slopes so as to satisfy the H/3 foundation setback requirement of the California Building Code. Based on the review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project, including the new OWTS, will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, 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.

The project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical report and conditions required by the City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the LACFD, including foundations, OWTS, and drainage. As such, the proposed project will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards. 95

Page 15 of 19 ends

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an impact on wildfire hazards as the subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards and the proposed development on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire.

The project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations and conditions required by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and the City Public Works Department. As such, the proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, fire, or any other hazards.

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

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

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

As previously stated in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

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

As previously discussed above, there are no expected impacts on site stability or structural integrity and therefore there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

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

As discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, development is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.
96

Page 16 of 19 ends

G. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
The Shoreline and Bluff Development Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications that include development on a parcel located along the shoreline as defined by the LCP. The project site is a blufftop property on the south side of PCH and includes the construction of a new single-family residence and accessory structures. No construction on the bluff is proposed. In accordance with LIP Section 10.2, the requirements of LIP Chapter 10 are applicable to the project and the required findings are made as follows.

Finding 1. The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The proposed project is sited on the front half of the lot at least 50 feet from the top of bluff. In addition, the subject property is located less than a quarter-mile from Nicholas Beach Road, which provides access to Nicholas Canyon Beach. As such there are no anticipated impacts to public access, shoreline sand supply, and other shoreline resources.

As stated previously, the top of bluff area was graded sometime between 1928 and 1952.

This grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photographs from 1928. The interpreted location of the 1928 top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback. Based on existing site conditions and possible extreme weather events, the applicant’s geology report estimates the long-term natural bluff retreat rate is 2 inches per year (0.167 feet per year). The amount of bluff retreat on the subject property over a 100-year period is then estimated to be 16.7 feet. In addition, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer determined that the subject property possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Therefore, a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GFSL) for the static condition has not been established by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer on the bluff slope. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer estimates the amount of bluff retreat within the subject property over a 100-year period to be 16.7 feet. Per LIP Section 10.4.D.2, a 10-foot buffer is required to be added to the 100-year bluff retreat setback distance of 16.7 feet. The resulting 100-year bluff retreat setback line is determined to be 26.7 feet from the topographic top of bluff. As show in Figure 1, the minimum 50-foot setback is more restrictive than the 100-year bluff retreat setback from the topographic top of slope.

Accordingly, the 50-foot setback was determined to govern the siting of the proposed development.

Per LIP Section 10.4.D, the City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers agreed with the engineer’s assessment in determining the top of bluff and agreed that the setback should be 50 feet. As such, the project is not anticipated to impact other resources due to project design or location.
97

Page 17 of 19 ends

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources due to required project modifications or other conditions.

As previously mentioned in Finding 1, the project is sited in the only feasible location which is in conformance with LIP Chapter 10 and will not have significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources due to required project modifications or other conditions.

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

As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the development is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

Finding 4. There are no alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources.

As determined in Findings 1 and 3, the proposed project is sited to avoid any potential impacts to public access, shoreline sand supply, and other resources.

Finding 5. In addition, if the development includes a shoreline protective device, that is designed or conditioned to be sited as far landward as feasible, to eliminate or mitigate to the maximum feasible extent adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply and public access, there are no alternatives that would avoid or lessen impacts on shoreline sand supply, public access or coastal resources and is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed project does not include a shoreline protection device or any bluff slope protection device and therefore, this finding is not applicable.

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

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

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

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

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where 98

Page 18 of 19 ends

there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

The project is new development between the nearest public roadway and the sea, but does not result in blockage of any existing public access. As described herein, public access to the ocean exists nearby at Nicholas Canyon Beach and El Sol County Beach.

The proposed development will maintain a 50-foot setback from the top of bluff and will not impede existing public access along the beach. The requirement for public access of LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

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

MMC Findings
J. Demolition Permit Findings (MMC Chapter 17.70)
MMC Section 17.70.060 requires that a demolition permit be issued for projects that result in the demolition of any building or structure. The findings for DP No. 22-008 are made as follows:

Finding 1. The demolition permit is conditioned to assure that it will be conducted in a manner that will not create significant adverse environmental impacts.

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.

Finding 2. A development plan has been approved or the requirement waived by the City.

This CDP application is being processed concurrently with DP No. 22-008, and approval of the demolition permit is subject to the approval of CDP No. 19-073.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
99

Page 19 of 19 ends

CORRESPONDENCE:

1. On June 6, 2022, the California Coastal Commission staff submitted correspondence regarding the blufftop setback determination and requested more information as to how the project conforms to LIP Section 10.4(D)(1) and (2).

2. On June 6, 2022, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority representative submitted correspondence disagreeing with the assertion that adequate public access to the beach exists nearby and requesting the Planning Commission require a lateral easement as a condition of approval.

As previously discussed in the Discussion section, more information on how the proposed project conforms to LIP Section 10.4(D)(1) and (2) in response to the correspondence from the California Coastal Commission. In addition, the presence of existing lateral accessways on adjacent properties and nearby access to Nicholas Canyon Beach road, providing access to Nicholas Canyon Beach and thereby conforming to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On May 19, 2022, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 6).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-46

2. Project Plans

3. Supplemental Engineering Geologic Study

4. Department Review Sheets

5. Public Correspondence

6. Public Hearing Notice
100

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 22-46

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. 19-073 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE-STORY, 6,567 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE PLUS A 1,723 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,375 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, 720 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED SECOND
UNIT, TENNIS COURT, 412 SQUARE FOOT TENNIS CABANA, SWIMMING

POOL, SPA, GRADING, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM; INCLUDING DEMOLITION
PERMIT NO. 22-008 TO DEMOLISH AN UNPERMITTED DRIVEWAY,
FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIALTWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 33650 PACIFIC COAST

HIGHWAY (HAAGAN)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On October 10, 2019, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-073 and Demolition Permit (DP) No. 22-008 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Eric Rochin, on behalf of the property owner, Charals Haagen. The application was routed to the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On December 9, 2021, the Planning Department deemed the application complete for processing.

C. On December 29, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions and surrounding area.

D. On May 11, 2022, story poles were installed to demonstrate the location and height of the proposed project.

E. On May 18, 2022, staff conducted a site visit to determine visual impacts and document the story poles.

F. On April 28, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

G. On May 19, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

H. On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the July 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT 101
Resolution No 22-46

Page 3 of 20 ends

I. On July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, 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 of projects that have been determined not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on July 18, 2022, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts findings of fact below and approves CDP No. 19-073 for construction of a new one-story, 6,567 single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement, 1,375 square foot detached garage, 720 square foot detached second unit, tennis court, 412 square foot tennis cabana, swimming pool, spa, grading, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including DP No. 22-008 to demolish an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping located in the Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) zoning district located at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion of the proposed variance and demolition permit, the project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, LACFD, and LAWD. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all the required residential development standards of the RR-2 residential zoning district.

2. The project conforms to the public access in recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that it will not affect the public’s right to access the coast as no development is proposed on the sand and adequate public access exists nearby at Nicolas Canyon County Beach and El Sol County Beach. Therefore, adequate public access exists nearby, and the project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

3. Evidence in the record, including detailed alternatives analysis provided in the Agenda Report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of DRAFT 102
Resolution No 22-46

Page 4 of 20 ends

the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The proposed project is a new single-family residence on a vacant parcel. The neighborhood is primarily built out with single-family residential buildings along the ocean. An analysis of the project’s visual impact from the beach was conducted through site inspections and architectural plans. As the proposed development will maintain the required 50-foot bluff setback and at heights not to exceed 18 feet, the proposed buildings are not expected to be prominent as view from the beach as only the top portions of the residence and second unit will be visible. The project is in conformance with LIP Chapter 6’s requirements for new developments on parcels located on the ocean side of public roads.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

3. The project as proposed and conditioned will result in less than significant impacts on scenic and visual resources. The location proposed for development would result in a less than significant visual impact to public view from the beach and will not impact sensitive resources.

All proposed development conforms to the bluewater ocean views requirements.

4. The subject parcel’s topography, setbacks, and height restrictions limit a feasible alternative to the siting of the proposed development. The structure is below the roadway elevation, meeting the LIP standard for new development on parcels located on the ocean side of public roads. As such, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. The proposed project’s location is sited in the only area of the subject parcel that minimizes potential impacts to scenic and visual resources. As such, the proposed project is in conformance with the sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neigh be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. The proposed project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and conditions required by the City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the LACFD, including foundations, OWTS, and drainage. As such, the proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, fire, or any other hazards.

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

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

DRAFT 103
Resolution No 22-46

Page 5 of 20 ends

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. These specialists and agencies determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. Since there are no significant impacts expected, there are no feasible alternatives to reduce significant impacts.

5. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

D. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)

1. The project site is a bluff-top property on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway and includes the construction of a new single-story, single-family residence. No construction on the bluff is proposed. The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers agreed with the applicant’s engineering assessment in determining the top of bluff and the setback of 50 feet. The top of bluff area was grading between 1928 and 1952. The grading altered or removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff observed in the aerial photographs from 1928. The interpreted location of the 1928 top of bluff was utilized when measuring the 50-foot setback. In addition, the proposed residence is site on the front half of the lot, closer to Pacific Coast Highway and away from the top of bluff.

Based on existing site conditions and possible extreme weather events, the applicant’s geology report estimates the long-term natural bluff retreat rate is 2 inches per year (0.167 feet per year).

The amount of bluff retreat on the subject property over a 100-year period is then estimated to be

16.7 feet. In addition, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer determined that the subject property possesses a calculated slope stability factor of which is greater than 1.5 (static). Therefore, a Geotechnical Factor of Safety Line (GFSL) for the static condition has not been established by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer on the bluff slope. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer estimates the amount of bluff retreat within the subject property over a 100-year period to be 16.7 feet. Per LIP Section 10.4.D.2, a 10-foot buffer is required to be added to the 100-year bluff retreat setback distance of 16.7 feet. The resulting 100-year bluff retreat setback line is determined to be

26.7 feet from the topographic top of bluff. The minimum 50-foot setback is more restrictive than the 100-year bluff retreat setback from the topographic top of slop. Accordingly, the 50-foot setback was determined to govern the siting of the proposed development. Per LIP Section 10.4.D, the City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers agreed with the engineer’s assessment in determining the top of bluff and agree that the setback should be 50 feet. As such, the project is not anticipated to impact other resources due to project design or location. In addition, the subject property is located less than a quarter mile from Nicholas Beach Road, which provides access to Nicholas Canyon County Beach. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources.

2. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is sited in the only feasible location which is in conformance with LIP Chapter 10 and will not have significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

4. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

DRAFT 104
Resolution No 22-46

Page 6 of 20 ends

5. The project does not include a shoreline protection device or any bluff slope protection device and therefore, this finding is not applicable.

E. Demolition Permit Findings (MMC Chapter 17.70)

1. 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. The Coastal Development Permit application is being processed concurrently with the Demolition Permit application No. 22-008, and approval of the demolition permit is subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-073.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 19-073 and DP No. 22-008, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approval includes:
a. 6,567 square foot single-family residence plus a 1,723 square foot basement and a 5,050 square foot deck;
b. 1,375 square foot detached garage;
c. 720 square foot second unit with a 466 square foot deck; d. Total development square footage (TDSF) for the project is 9,471 square feet; e. Swimming pool and spa;
f. 7,194 square foot tennis court and fencing;
g. 412 square foot tennis cabana;
h. OWTS;
i. Landscaping;
j. Grading; and
k. DP No. 22-008 for removal of unpermitted chain-link gates, fences, grading and paving of driveways, planting of non-native trees, plants and grasses for nurserytype displays, and planting of Eucalyptus trees blocking public views of the ocean/beach from PCH.

DRAFT 105
Resolution No 22-46

Page 7 of 20 ends

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be insubstantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped May 25, 2022. In the event the project plans conflict with any conditions 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 and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. Additional evidence shall be provided to demonstrate that the proposed cantilevered decks will not be built within existing steep slopes prior to plan check. Any increase in height to the buildings as a result of compliance with this condition would result in an amendment to the CDP.

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

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

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

9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured. 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 MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

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

DRAFT 106
Resolution No 22-46

Page 8 of 20 ends
← All documents from this meeting