Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, May 22, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

Cultural Resources

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

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

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.

DRAFT 107
Resolution No 22-46

Page 9 of 20 ends

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.
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.

DRAFT 108
Resolution No 22-46

Page 10 of 20 ends

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.

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.

DRAFT 109
Resolution No 22-46

Page 11 of 20 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.

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 DRAFT 110
Resolution No 22-46

Page 12 of 20 ends

(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, postconstruction 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
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas DRAFT 111
Resolution No 22-46

Page 13 of 20 ends

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. Public Works Department;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
DRAFT 112
Resolution No 22-46

Page 14 of 20 ends

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

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.”

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 DRAFT 113
Resolution No 22-46

Page 15 of 20 ends

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, 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.

DRAFT 114
Resolution No 22-46

Page 16 of 20 ends

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, 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 DRAFT 115
Resolution No 22-46

Page 17 of 20 ends

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.

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 DRAFT 116
Resolution No 22-46

Page 18 of 20 ends

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 (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.

DRAFT 117
Resolution No 22-46

Page 19 of 20 ends

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.

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 DRAFT 118
Resolution No 22-46

Page 20 of 20 ends

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 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.

DRAFT 119
Resolution No 22-46

Page 21 of 20 ends

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July 2022.

Kraig Hill, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms, in person, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval 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 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
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 22-46 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of July 2022 by the following vote:

REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT 120
Resolution No 22-46

Page 22 of 20 ends

121
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 ATTACHMENT 2 122
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:
123

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

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

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]
124
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]
125
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]
126
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]
127
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]
128
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]
129
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]
130
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]
131
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"
132
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]
133
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]
134
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]
135
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]
136
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]
137
116 FF 10
9 A
B
H
B
A
H
H
H
H
9 9

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MID POINT

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

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
UNCOVERED - 2 CAR PARKING

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]
138
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]
139
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]
140
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]
141
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]
142
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]
143
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]
144
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]
145
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]
146
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"
147
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]
148
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]
149
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]
150
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]
151
~aE~I~LAND 5w

REPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC STUDY

PROPOSED ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS)
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR CHARALS HAAGAN
MARCH 26, 2020 Project No.: LP1431

ELECTRONIC COPY
lins file is an ci non lignal o~n of an engineering geologic document prepared h~ Land Phases. In (L,”). The use of/his electronic file shall hc j~eifi, iw / anti hi II’ s client, their authorized agent(s). qualified professionals nh a i~oss ‘S’S I I I I/us electrotuc copy is penuittecl hi mu’, and or hi perlmssion granted M IP THE ALTERATION OF ANY PORTION OF THIS ELECTRONIC COP~ (i.e report test. geologic data, diagrams. figures. maps. etc.) BY AM PERSON ENTITh OR F RM OTHER THAN LI~ IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IS A CRIMINAl OFFENSF AND SHALL BE PROSECUTED TO TIlE FUL. EXTENT OF THE LAYs A PRINTED OR HARD COP~ VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT SHAI L NOT BE CO\SIDERED OFFICIAL AND OR ACCURATE YsITHOUT T -IE PRESENCE OF A “WET’ SIGNATURE AND STAMP OF THE LICENSED I P PROFFSSIONA

CONTAINED THEREIN

THIS FILE IS NOT AN OFF CIAL LECTRONIC COPY UNLESS THIS NOTE AND TIlE SIGNATURE AND SiAN P OF THE LICENSED LP PRO ESSIONAL ARE CO\i AINED HEREIN
5158 COCHRAN ST., SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063 (805) 522-5174 WWW.LANDPHASES.COM ATTACHMENT 3
152
At~’[4ING!fHA5~5IN
March 26, 2020 Project No.: LP1431
Charals Haagan
P.O. Box 66369
Culver City, CA 90066
SUBJECT: REPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC STUDY, PROPOSED ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS), 33650 PACIFIC COAST

HIGHWAY, CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Haagan,
Land Phases, Inc. (LP) is pleased to report the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study performed with respect to the proposed construction and use of an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway which is located in the City of Malibu, California. Work performed as part of our supplemental engineering geologic study was in general accordance with the authorized scope of work presented in our Work Order # I, dated February 19, 2020.

This report summarizes our scope of work and presents the results of our research, our analyses and interpretation of surficial and subsurface geologic data, and presents our engineering geologic conclusions and recommendations concerning the subject property and the proposed project. Based on the results of our supplemental engineering geologic study, it is currently our opinion that the proposed project is feasible from an engineering geologic standpoint provided the recommendations presented in this report, and those presented by the Project OWTS Engineer, are properly incorporated in the design and implemented during construction.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our professional engineering geologic services. It is strongly recommended that you read this report from cover to cover in order to understand the assumptions and limitations of this study and to avoid taking a finding or recommendation out-of-context. Please avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretation ofthis report by calling the undersigned with any questions you may have.

Jake W. Hol
PG 7404, CEG~?S~CHG 816 exp. 11-30-20
Principal Engineering Geologist and Hydrogeologist
Distribution: (I) Addressee (via email)
(3) Eric Rochin (plus I pdf copy on CD for City submittal) (I) Cal West Geotechnical (via email)
(I) EPD Consultants, Inc. (via email)
Respec~fuIIy Submitled~

LAND PHASES, INC
5158 COCHRAN 514 SIMI VALLEY, CA 93063 (805) 522-5174 WWW.LANDPHASES.COM 153
March 26, 2020 Page 3
ProjectNo.: LP1431

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCHON 6
General Remarks and Purpose 6
Proposed OWTS 6
Scope ofWork 6
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
Site Location 7
Regional Geomorphology 7
Site Geomorphology 7
Existing Stnzctures 8
Site Drainage 8
Site Vegetation 9
PREVIOUS STUDIES 2
General 9
Subject Property 9
Nearby Properties 10
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 10
Regional Geologic Setting 10
Regional Geologic Mapping 10
Site Geology 11
Geologic Units _..... .. .. .. .. .. .. — .. 11
Artjficial Fill (a)) 11
Soil(Qs) 11
Talus (Qils) 11
Beach Deposits (Qbs) 11
Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt) 12
Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtin) 12
Landslide Debris (Qls) 12
Bedrock (Ttus, Tt4 and Ti) 12
Geologic Structure................... ...... .. .._..., ._~. .. 13 Bedding 13
Joints 13
Shears 14
Folds 14
Faults 14
HYDROGEOLOGY 16
Introduction 16
Groundwater Defined 16
Observed Site Groundwater Conditions 17
Historic Site Groundwater Conditions 17
Highest Anticipated Site Groundwater Conditions 17
154
March 26, 2020 Page 4
ProjectNo.: LP1431
Percolation Testing for OWTS Design 17
Anticipated Path of Sewage Effluent 18
Vertical Separation to Groundwater 18
SITE/SLOPE STABILITY 18
Past Slope Performance (Landslides and Rain Damage) 18
Quantitative Surficial and Gross Stability 18

CONCLUSIONS
General Findings 19
Geologic Conditions 19
Final Project Conclusion 19
RECOMMENDATIONS 19
Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) 19
Excavation Characteristics 20
Temporary Excavations and Shoring 20
Site Observations and Testing 20
Responsibilities and Site Control 21
Plan Review 22
ASSUMPTIONS and LIMITATIONS 22
General 22
Report Intent 22
ReportUse 22
Accuracy ofTopographic Base Map(s) 23
Locations ofExploratory Excavations 23
Variation in Subsurface Conditions 23
Site Risks 24
Hazardous MateriaLs 24
Additional Work 24
Report Expiration 25
Warrantee 25

REFERENCES

ATTACHMENTS
Figures:

Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2— Site Location Map
Figure 3—Regional Geologic Map by Dibblee (1990)
Figure 4—Fault Map, portion of Figure 3A ftom FER-229 (1994) Figures— Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 6— City of Malibu Ground Response Map by Fugro Consultants, Inc. 155
March 26, 2020 Page 5
ProjectNo.: LP1431
Appendices:

Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Excavations
-Geologic Logs of Borings # 1-10
-Geologic Logs of Test Pits # 1-7
Map Pocket:

Plate!— Geologic Map (scale: 1” equals 20’)
Plate 2— Geologic Sections A-A’, B-B’ (scale: I” equals 20’) 156
March 26, 2020 Page 6
ProjectNo.: LP1431

INTRODUCTION
General Remarks and Purpose
The following report summarizes findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study concerning the subject property. The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the geologic conditions of the subject property with respect to the proposed installation and use of an OWTS.

Our supplemental engineering geologic study ofthe subject property was performed in conjunction with a percolation study performed by EPD Consultants, Inc. To clarify, LP is the Project Engineering Geologist and EPD Consultants is the Project OWTS Engineer with respect to the proposed OWTS.

Proposed OWTS
A public sewer system is not currently available to service the subject property. Thus, it is proposed to construct an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) on the subject property in order to serve the proposed residence and guest house. It is anticipated that the proposed OWTS will consist of treatment tanks and seepage pits per the recommendations of the Project OWTS Engineer. Formal OWTS plans have not been prepared and await, in part, the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

Scope of Work
Our supplemental engineering geologic study ofthe subject property was conducted from February 27, 2020 to March 26, 2020 and included the following tasks:
• Review of the current site development plans which were provided to our office. • Additional research and review of available City files and archives for geologic data pertinent to the subject property and adjacent area.
• Additional review of selected aerial photographs, published engineering geologic references, and available published and unpublished engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering reports. The references cited or utilized as part of this study are listed in the REFERENCES section of this report.
• Excavation and logging of an additional 2 percolation test borings (Borings # 9 and 10) within the subject property. The borings were excavated with a track-mounted drill-rig.

When completed with our examination and logging of the aforementioned exploratory excavations, the excavations gravel-packed to grade in order to prevent caving during percolation testing. The geologic logs of the boring excavations are presented in Appendix A of this report.
• Geologic field mapping of the surficial deposits and/or outcrops located within and adjacent to the subject property.
• Preparation of a site-specific Geologic Map (scale: 1” equals 20’) which utilizes the provided topographic survey as a base. The Geologic Map illustrates the proposed project, the locations of LP’s exploratory excavations, the locations of the geologic cross-sections 157
March 26, 2020 Page 7
ProjectNo.: LP1431
constructed as part of this study, and the interpreted geologic conditions of the site based on the findings of our engineering geologic study. The Geologic Map is attached to this report as Plate 1.

Preparation of a revised Geologic Section B-B’(scale: 1” equals 20’) which illustrates the topographic and interpreted geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of a selected portion of the subject property based on the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study.

The location and orientation of the geologic section is typically intended to illustrate the interpreted geologic and hydrogeologic conditions underlying the worst-case or steepest slope of the area of the proposed seepage pits. Geologic Section B-B’ is attached to this report as Plate 2.
• Analysis of the geologic and hydrogeologic data obtained from the aforementioned tasks. • Preparation of this supplemental report that presents our engineering geologic findings, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to the subject property and proposed project.
• All aspects of this study were performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a State of California Certified Engineering Geologist.

SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Location
The subject property is located on the southern flank of the Santa Monica Mountains in the City of Malibu, California. Specifically, the subject property is located west of Kanan Dume Road, west of Decker Canyon Road, east of the Los Angeles-Ventura County line, on the south and downslope side of Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 1). Custom single-family residences are present on the adjacent properties located to the east and west. The Malibu Riding and Tennis Club is located across Pacific Coast Highway to the north. The Pacific Ocean is present to the south.

Regional Geomorphology
The property is located within the geographic area known as the Santa Monica Mountains. The geomorphic conditions of this area have been sculpted by factors associated with geographic location, the underlying geologic conditions, tectonics, climate, erosion, and man. Based on our observations of the area, and our review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map of the Triunfo Pass Quadrangle, the general topographic conditions of the surrounding area consist of a south-facing mountain front which has been incised by southtrending drainage courses. In addition, moderately level to gently sloping marine and non-marine terrace surfaces are located within the subject property and surrounding area (see Figure 2).

Site Geomorphology
Locally, the subject property is described as a partially graded lot which is situated on gentle sloping alluvial (non-marine) terrace surface. The alluvial terrace surface is locally incised by southerly-trending drainage courses. One such drainage course boarders the eastern margin of the 158
March 26, 2020 Page 8
ProjectNo.: LP1431
subject property. In addition, a steep south-facing slope (i.e. a coastal bluff) and sandy beach are present within the southern portion of the site. Based on our review of the referenced aerial photographs and consultation with the property owner, past grading within the northern half (approx.) of the subject property has included minor cutting and filling performed in association with the construction of the access paths which traverse the site and in association with site landscaping activities. In addition, a significant amount of grading has been performed within the southern portion of the site in order to construct an amphitheater-shaped pad area and associated access path. Based on our review of the referenced aerial photographs, the grading within the southern portion of the site took place sometime between 1928 and 1952 and is reported to have been performed in order to provide a filming location for a movie. Based on our site observations and mapping, it appears that this grading consisted primarily of cutting but also appears to have involved the placement or casting of fill materials over the face of the bluff. Furthermore, this grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff which is clearly visible across the site in the referenced 1928 photographs. The interpreted location of the top of the pre-existing coastal bluff (as seen in the 1928 photographs) is illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). In addition, LP has also illustrated our interpretation ofthe pre-grading topography of the bluff on the attached Geologic Sections A-A ‘ and B-B’ (Plate 2). It should be noted that the location of the 1928 top of bluff is more restrictive (i.e. more landward) than the existing “artificial” top of bluff which is located along the southern margin of the lower pad area of the site. Also consistent with the guidelines of the City of Malibu LCP, LP has projected the top of the coastal bluff across the natural canyon area of the site to join with the topographic top of bluff which is present within the adjacent property to the east.

Tbtal physical relief within the subject property is on the order of 130 feet. Slope gradients within the site vary from nearly horizontal in the project areas of the site to near vertical on localized portions of the coastal bluff. The existing topographic conditions of the subject property are presented on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1) which utilizes the provided topographic survey as a base.

Existing Structures
Concrete pathways, wood walls, and wood stairways are present within the southern portion of the subject property. The wood walls which boarder the concrete pathways and various “sitting areas” range in height from I to 3 feet. However, wooden retaining walls up to 4 feet high are present on portions of the site and appear to have been constructed in order to help mitigate local areas of surficial instability. The locations ofthe existing structures are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). However, it should be noted that some of the aforementioned wood walls shown on the attached geologic map were destroyed by the recent Woolsey Fire. At the time of our engineering geologic study the existing concrete pathway appeared to be in good condition with no visible signs of excessive settlement or distress. However, it should be noted that detailed evaluation of the condition and/or structural performance of the existing concrete pathway is beyond the scope of this study.

Site Drainage
Site drainage is primarily by sheet flow runoff which is directed toward the south via the existing contours. However, a somewhat extensive area drainage system is also present with the site which 159
March 26, 2020 Page 9
Project No.: LP1431
includes area drain inlets and both subsurface and surface piping which transfers collected runoff to the beach area of the site. In addition, hydraugers (horizontal drains) were observed at the toe of the bluff. Also, the head of what appears to be a dewatering well was also observed within the southern portion of the site. It is uncertain as to when these dewatering devices were installed, and by who, as a permit or report documenting their installation could not be located by LP in the City records during the course of this study.

Site Vegetation
Vegetation on the subject property consists of a mix of domestic and natural shrubs, trees, and grasses. However, much of the site vegetation burned during the recent Woolsey Fire.

PREVIOUS STUDIES
General
Available engineering geologic/geotechnical engineering records on file at our office and the City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety were researched as part of our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property. Pertinent engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering data presented in the available reports was utilized, as deemed appropriate, in our engineering geologic analysis of the site and preparation of this report. The references cited or utilized as part of this study are listed in the REFERENCES section of this report.

Subject Property
Based on our research of available City records, the subject property was previously studied by various geologic/geotechnical consultants over the years. The geologic/geotechnical reports regarding the subject property, which were located on file at the City of Malibu or were provided to LP by the current property owner, are listed in the REFERENCES section of this report.

However, in all cases for the reports prepared prior to 2019, the reports were incomplete in that they were missing pages and/or geologic maps showing the locations of their subsurface exploration. Thus, the geologic data presented in the incomplete reports could not be completely or accurately utilized and presented by LP as part of our supplemental engineering geologic study.

However, the geologic data and/or information which could be gleaned from our review of the referenced reports (i.e. site history and general geologic conditions of the site) has been incorporated into our supplemental engineering geologic study and this report.

The subject property was recently studied by LP (2019, 201 9a, 2020) and CalWest Geotechnical (CWG, 2019). Specifically, LP and CWG performed an engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering study of the subject property with respect to the currently proposed custom singlefamily residential development at the site. This study included, in part, the excavation, logging, and sampling of 8 borings and 7 test pits. A copy of the geologic logs of the aforementioned exploratory excavations is included in Appendix A of this report. The geologic information obtained from our prior study has been incorporated into our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property and is illustrated, as appropriate, on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). Based on the findings of our study, LP and CWG concluded that the site was suitable for the previously proposed project provided the presented recommendations were implemented during 160
March 26, 2020 Page 10
Project No.: LP1431
design and construction. The detailed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this study are presented in the referenced reports which are on file at the City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety.

Nearby Properties
In addition to the aforementioned site-specific studies of the subject property, several engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering studies have been performed concerning nearby properties.

The geologic information obtained from these studies has been incorporated into our engineering geologic study of the subject property and is illustrated, as appropriate, on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). The detailed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of these studies are presented in the referenced reports which are on file at the City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject property is located within the Transverse Ranges geologic province of California. The general geologic structures and conditions of the Transverse Ranges geologic province are a direct result of lateral and compressional tectonics. Due to the bend in the San Andreas Fault, located to the northeast, this region of California is experiencing compressional stresses in addition to rightlateral strike-slip motion associated with the Pacific and North American plate boundary. This stress has produced a region characterized by east/west-trending mountain ranges, valleys, geologic structures, and numerous active faults which is in contrast to the overall north/northwest structural trend elsewhere in the state. Faulting of the Transverse Ranges, due to the relatively high compressional forces, is primarily thrust or reverse-dip-slip faulting usually with lateral components.

Regional Geologic Mapping
Part of our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property involved the review of available geologic publications and regional geologic maps as the review of regional geologic data is often very useful in determining and analyzing the geologic conditions of a particular site.

A brief summary of the pertinent geologic data presented by the geologic publications and regional geologic maps reviewed as part of this study is as follows:

Regional geologic mapping by Dibblee (1990) indicates that the subject property is primarily underlain by older surficial sediments (Qoa) of Pleistocene age. Holocene age beach deposits (Qs) are also mapped within the southern portion of the site and Dibblee’s mapping indicates that sedimentary bedrock of the Upper Topanga Formation (Ttus) is present beneath the aforementioned surficial units. Dibblee’s mapping indicates that bedding present within the bedrock in the area of the subject property strikes generally east-west and dips steeply towards the south. In regards to faulting, Dibblee maps the concealed trace of the Malibu Coast Fault within the northern portion of the subject property (see Figure 3).

Regional mapping of the Malibu Coast Fault by Treiman and the California Division of Mines and Geology (1994; now referred to as the California Geological Survey — CGS) in the area of the 161
March 26, 2020 — Page II
ProjectNo.: LP1431
subject property is generally consistent with the fault mapping performed by Dibblee (see Figure 4).

Site Geology
The geologic conditions (i.e. earth materials and structure) beneath the subject property have been interpreted and characterized based upon our review of published and unpublished geologic references, review of available engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering reports, our observations of isolated exposures available during surface mapping of the site and adjacent area, and the findings of our subsurface exploration. It should be noted that our interpretations of the geologic bonditions of the subject property involve projections of data and require that geologic conditions remain reasonably constant between points of observation and/or exposure.

Geologic Units
Based on the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study, the geologic units (i.e. earth materials) underlying the subject property consist of artificial fill, soil, talus deposits, landslide debris, non-marine terrace deposits, and marine terrace deposits over sedimentary and intrusive igneous bedrock. The mapped distribution of the geologic units underlying the subject property, based on the geologic data collected to date, is presented on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1).

Artificial Fill (af)
A minor to moderate amount of artificial fill mantles portions of the subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the artificial fill consists of an admixture of soil and terrace deposits and is described as silty sand and sandy clay with gravel which is dark reddish brown, moderate brown, dusky brown, and brownish black, dry to slightly moist, and is loose to medium dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble-size clasts of miscellaneous rocks derived from the local terrace deposits. Based upon the findings of our subsurface exploration, the artificial fill ranges in thickness from 0.5 to 6 feet. However, the fill may be locally thicker within unexplored areas of the subject property.

Soil (Qs)
Natural residual soil overlies the natural terrace deposits on portions of the subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the soil is described as sandy clay and clayey sand with gravel which is brownish gray, pale brown, moderate brown, and dark yellowish brown, dry to slightly moist, and is medium stiff/medium dense to stiff/dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble- to cobble-size clasts of sandstone.

Talus (Qtls)
Natural talus deposits are present at the toe of the south-facing bluff slope of the subject property.

Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the talus is described as an unorganized accumulation of sand, silt, and gravel.

Beach Deposits (Qbs)
Natural beach deposits underlie the southern portion ofthe subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the beach deposits consist of cohesionless sand which is pale yellowish brown to grayish orange, medium-grained, dry to wet with depth, and is medium dense. 162
March 26, 2020 Page 12
Project No.: LP1431
Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt)
Natural non-marine terrace deposits underlie the subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the non-marine terrace deposits are described as interbedded mixtures of sand, silty, clay, and gravel which is moderate brown to dark reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, and dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble- to cobblesize clasts of sandstone, granite, quartzite, and volcanics.

Marine Terrace Deposits (Qim)
Natural marine terrace deposits underlie the subject property, beneath the non-marine terrace deposits. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the marine terrace deposits are described as interlayered mixtures of sand and gravel which is dark yellowish orange and moderate brown, slightly moist to wet, and is dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to rounded, pebble- to boulder-size clasts of sandstone, granite, quartzite, and volcanics. While the marine terrace deposits are dense, they are composed of non-cohesive materials and are subject to caving.

Landslide Debris (Qls)
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, LP has concluded that landslide debris underlies the southern portion of the subject property, on the face of the coastal bluff. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the mapped landslide debris appears to be “surficial” in nature and appears to be a slump-type failure of artificial fill which had been cast over the slope as part of the pre-1952 site grading. However, at the toe of the mapped landslide area, it also appears that the slumping has included the weathered bedrock and terrace deposits which were exposed by the bluff face. Based on our review of available photographs from 1952 to the present, the south-facing bluff of the slope has experienced many episodes of instability which have been primarily contained with the mapped landslide limits presented on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1).

The mapped limits of landslide debris within the subject property were determined by our detailed geologic field mapping of the area and our analysis of the referenced aerial photographs. The mapped limits of landslide debris are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). The subsurface geometry of the mapped landslide area was interpreted by out geologic mapping and analysis of the prepared geologic sections. The interpreted subsurface geometry of mapped landslide area is illustrated on the attached Geologic Sections A-A’ and B-B’(Plate 2).

Bedrock (This, Tt4 and Ti)
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, bedrock underlying the subject property consists primarily of interbedded sandstone and siltstone mapped as part of the Upper Topanga Formation (Ttus) and Lower Topanga Formation (Ttl) of Miocene age. However, intrusive igneous bedrock (Ti) was also observed within the site which is most likely related to the Conejo Volcanics of Miocene age.

The sandstone and siltstone bedrock of the Upper Topanga Formation is exposed within the southern portion of the site. The sandstone is grayish orange to yellowish gray, thin to thickly bedded, fine- to very coarse-grained, somewhat friable to non-friable, moderately hard to hard, 163
March 26, 2020 Page 13
Project No.: LP1431
slightly to moderately fractured, and is slightly to moderately weathered. The siltstone is medium gray to dark gray, thinly bedded, somewhat friable, moderately hard, moderately fractured, and is slightly to moderately weathered.

The sandstone and siltstone bedrock of the Lower Topanga Formation is interpreted to be present on the north side of the Malibu Coast Fault which has been mapped across the northern portion of the site (to be discussed). The Lower Topanga Formation is not exposed within the site and was not encountered in any of the test pits or borings of our engineering geologic study. However, based on our review of the referenced regional geologic map by Dibblee (1990), the sandstone and siltstone of the Lower Topanga Formation is most likely similar to that of the Upper Topanga Formation.

The intrusive igneous bedrock is not exposed within the subject property. However, it was encountered in LP’s Boring # 8. The intrusive igneous bedrock consists of basalt which is grayish green with abundant iron- and manganese-oxide staining, massive, fine- to medium-crystalline, is olivine rich, porphyritic, somewhat friable to strong, moderately hart to hard, slightly to moderately fractured, and is moderately weathered to slightly weathered with depth.

Geologic Structure
The earth materials, present within the subject property are common to this area of Malibu and their occurrence is generally consistent with regional trends.

Bedding
Bedding is the arrangement of a sedimentary rock in layers which is also referred to as stratification. A bedding plane is defined as the division plane in sedimentary or stratified rock that separates each successive layer, or bed, from the one above and below. The term may also be applied to a layered arrangement in non-lithified sediment, igneous bedrock, or metamorphic bedrock.

The non-marine and marine terrace deposits observed within subject property are horizontally stratified with a slight dip towards the south. The observed stratification of the terrace deposits is illustrated on the attached geologic section(s).

Bedding planes mapped within the underlying bedrock generally strike east-west and dip towards the north. The locations, depths (if obtained from a subsurface excavation), and orientations of the mapped bedding planes are presented on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). The structural interpretation of bedding within the underlying bedrock is illustrated on the attached geologic section(s) based on the measured true and/or calculated apparent dip of bedding.

Joints
Ajointplane is the surface of a fracture or parting at which no appreciable movement has occurred parallel to the fracture, and only slight movement has occurred normal to the fracture. Joint surfaces can be systematic with subparallel orientations and regular spacing or non-systematic which irregular orientations, shape, and spacing. A joint set is a group ofjoint surfaces which are more or less parallel. Ajoint system is two or more joint sets which are subparallel to each other and intersect. Joints may be unfilled; that is, the fracture may be open and void of mineral infilling 164
March 26, 2020 Page 14
ProjeetNo.: LP1431
or an open joint surface may be occupied with some form of mineral infihling. Joints can occur in bedrock as well as in unlithified sedimentary deposits. The development of joint surfaces in bedrock is most commonly in response to burial, unburial, application of regional deformational forces, application of local deformational forces, and the cessation of regional or local deformational forces.

Significant joint planes, sets, or systems were not identified within the underlying earth materials during our engineering geologic study of the subject property.

Shears
Shear is defined as a ductile deformation resulting from stresses that cause contiguous parts of a body, or material, to slide relative to each other in a direction parallel to their contact, A shear plane is defined as the surface or zone along which differential movement, by shear, has taken place. It should be noted that a shear plane is also synonymous with the definition of a fault.

However, the term shear plane or shear zone is used when movement is interpreted to be in the micro-sense as compared to a macro-sense of displacement associated with a fault or fault zone.

The development of a shear plane or shear zone in subsurface materials is most commonly related to regional or local faulting and folding. Simply, the subsurface stresses and pressures associated with faulting and folding can deform the adjacent bedrock or portions thereof. The deformation and/or movement at the shear surface often results in the presence of a zone of gouge or breccia typically consisting of clay, silt, or pulverized material derived from the surounding parent material. Shear planes can develop within bedrock along pre-existing parting surfaces such as bedding, foliation, or joints planes but can also develop between parting planes, within massive bedrock, and/or in orientations which cross-cut the pre-existing bedrock structures. Shear planes can also develop during mass slope movements such as landslide. In instances where the basal failure surface of a landslide (i.e. landslide plane) did not fail along a pre-existing shear surface, the pressures and stresses at the basal surface of a slope failure can form a shear plane by the grinding of subsurface materials as the landslide develops followed by decomposition of the materials at the shear surface aided by the interaction between the sheared materials and groundwater.

Significant or mapable shear planes were not identified within the underlying earth materials during our engineering geologic study of the subject property.

Folds
Analysis of structural geologic data obtained during our engineering geologic study indicates that a significant fold feature is not present within the subsurface of the subject property.

Faults
A fault is a fracture, or zone of closely related fractures, along which there has been si~nificant relative displacement of the materials, on opposite sides of the fault, in a direction parallel to the fracture. Sudden movement along a fault releases energy in the form of seismic waves and is commonly known as an earthquake. A fault can be present as a single plane of fracture or shear, or a broad zone of deformation or distributed tectonic movement ranging in width from a few feet 165
March 26, 2020 Page 15
Project No.: LPI43)
to several miles. A fault trace is the line formed by the intersection of a fault with the Earth’s surface.

Faults are classified as either active, potentially active, or inactive. The State of California defines an active fault as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene epoch of geologic time (i.e. the last 11,700 years). Potentially active faults are defined by the State of California as those which display evidence of surface displacement movement in the Pleistocene epoch of geologic time (i.e. between 11,700 and 1.6 million years before present). Inactive faults are those which do not display evidence of surface displacement within the Pleistocene and Holocene (i.e. the last 1.6 million years).

The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act of 1972, with subsequent amendments and revisions (i.e. name revision in 1993 to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act), prohibits locating most structures planned for human occupancy across known active faults. This state law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the State Geologist designates “Earthquake Fault Zones”, previously known as “Special Studies Zones”, around faults that are known to be sufficiently active and well-defined. A sufficiently. active fault is defined as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement, along one or more of its segments or branches, within the Holocene epoch of geologic time (i.e. the last 11,700 years). A well-defined fault is defined as a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained Geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. Most new development projects located within designated Earthquake Fault Zones are required to demonstrate the absence of active faults underneath building areas.

Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act specifies that it be assumed that active faults underlie the area located within 50 feet of the fault splays which are illustrated on the Earthquake Fault Zone maps. No structures planned for human occupancy shall be permitted in this setback area unless detailed geologic investigation of this area indicates that active faults are not present. It should be noted that most local City and/or County governmental agencies are permitted to, and have adopted policies and/or criteria which are stricter than those established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Specifically, most local City and/or County governmental agencies prohibit the construction of a structure planned for human occupancy within 50 feet of an active fault once the exact location of the fault has been determined by a detailed geologic study.

The subject property is not located within a State-designated Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the site. However, as previously discussed in this report, regional geologic mapping by Dibblee (1990) indicates that the concealed trace of the Malibu Coast Fault traverses the northern portion of the subject property (see Figures 3 and 4). Please refer to the referenced geologic report by LP (2019) for a complete discussion of our seismic hazard evaluation of the subject property.
166
March 26, 2020 Page 16
Project No.: LP143]

HYDROGEOLOGY
Introduction
Hydrogeology is defined as the application of the science of geology to the study of the occurrence, distribution, quantity, movement, and quality of water below the surface of the earth and the interrelationship between the geologic conditions and groundwater. With respect to proposed project and our engineering geologic study of the subject property, our hydrogeologic analysis of the site primarily involved the determination of the presence and distribution of groundwater (current and/or historic) within the subsurface in order for LP and/or the other project consultants to perform appropriate analysis of the site so that proper recommendations (mitigative or otherwise) can be made with respect to the proposed project.

Current and historic groundwater conditions of the subject property were determined by our observations and measurements in the exploratory excavations of this engineering geologic study (if applicable) and/or our review of the referenced engineering geologic publications and reports.

Off-site groundwater interpretations, performed when necessary by LP as part of our preparation of the geologic section(s), are based collectively on the groundwater conditions observed within the subject property, our review of groundwater data presented in the referenced engineering geologic publications and reports, and our analysis of the regional topographic and geologic conditions of the area.

Groundwater Defined
All water that is present beneath the surface of the Earth is referred to as subsurface water or groundwater. Groundwater most commonly occurs in two different zones within the subsurface.

One zone, which usually occurs immediately below the ground surface, contains both water and air in the available pore space of the surrounding sediment or rock materials and is referred to as the unsaturated zone. And most often, the zone located beneath the unsaturated zone is an area in which all the available pore space is filled with water. This zone is referred to as the saturated zone. In the unsaturated zone, groundwater is most often present as moisture which is retained within the surrounding sediment or rock as a film on the grain surfaces or water which is percolating downward through the subsurface towards the saturated zone.

In the subsurface, groundwater can be unconfined, confined, semi-confined, or perched. A confining bed is a rock unit or layer which has a low hydraulic conductivity and thus restricts the movement of groundwater. The presence of a confining bed, or beds, within the subsurface can result in the presence of a confined, semi-confined, or perched groundwater condition.

In an unconfined subsurface condition, the upper surface of the saturated zone is referred to as the potentiometric surface. The potentiometric surface is commonly referred to as the “groundwater level” or “groundwater table” and is the elevation in the subsurface at which the hydraulic pressure of the subsurface water is equal to atmospheric pressure. This is also the level or elevation at which water will be observed in a well, or exploratory excavation, which penetrates into the saturated zone. In a confined subsurface condition, the saturated zone is overlain by a confining bed and the upper surface of the saturated zone is referred to as the piezometric surface. The piezometric surface usually possesses a hydraulic pressure which is greater than atmospheric 167
March 26, 2020 Page 17
ProjectNo.: LP1431
pressure and is the level or elevation at which water will be observed in a well, or subsurface excavation, which penetrates through the confining bed into the saturated zone.

Factors controlling the presence, elevation, and movement of groundwater include regional climatic conditions, geomorphology, distance to rivers, lakes, and oceans, geologic structure, hydraulic conductivity of the subsurfacematerials, dynamic characteristics of the water, strength of the gravitational field, irrigation, and land use. Thus, the presence, elevation, and movement of groundwater can vary significantly over short distances and can also fluctuate. Therefore, groundwater levels at the time of construction and during the life of the structures may vary from the observations or conditions encountered at the time of the field exploration.

Observed Site Groundwater Conditions
Based on the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study, generally unconfined conditions are interpreted to the present within the subsurface of the subject property. Thus, the technical name of the underlying level of groundwater is the potentiometric surface. However, for simplification purposes and for those not readily familiar with hydrogeologic terms, the potentiometric surface is referred to as groundwater level for the remaining sections ofthis report.

Groundwater, in the form of heavy water seepage, was encountered in LP’s Boring # 8 at a depth of 25 to 26 feet. This depth coincides with the terrace-bedrock contact beneath the site. Based on this finding, and the coastal location of the subject property, LP interprets that groundwater is perched on the underlying terrace-bedrock contact. LP’s interpretation of the underlying groundwater level is illustrated on the attached geologic section(s).

Historic Site Groundwater Conditions
Evidence of a historically higher groundwater level (i.e. at an elevation higher than what was observed and previously discussed) was not observed by LP. The referenced Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report for the Triunfo Pass Quadrangle indicates the presence of a historically high groundwater level at a depth of 5 feet below existing grade in the area ofthe subject property (DOC CDMG; now referred to as the California Geological Survey - CGS, 2002).

Highest Anticipated Site Groundwater Conditions
As previously stated, the underlying groundwater level was encountered during our prior engineering geologic study and is illustrated, where appropriate, on the attached geologic section(s). However, as also stated in this report, evidence of a historically higher groundwater level (i.e. at an elevation higher than what was observed and previously discussed) was not observed by LP during our engineering geologic study. While it is known that the presence, elevation, and movement of groundwater can vary significantly over short distances and can also fluctuate; based upon the location, elevation, topographic and geologic conditions of the subject property, the underlying groundwater level is not currently anticipated to rise to an elevation significantly higher than what was observed on the site and described herein.

Percolation Testing for OWTS Design
It is our understanding that it is currently planned to construct the seepage pit(s) of the proposed OWTS in the area of Borings #2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and/or 10. Percolation testing was performed by 168
March 26, 2020 Page IS
ProjectNo.: LP1431
utilizing the aforementioned borings by the Project OWTS Engineer. The purpose of the percolation testing was to determine the feasibility for the design and use of seepage pits as a method of subsurface wastewater disposal. Based on the percolation testing, it is our understanding that the underlying terrace deposits provides adequate absorption of effluent as required by the local regulatory agency for the design and use of a seepage pit-type OWTS; however, more than one seepage pit may be required. The detailed percolation test report shall be provided by the Project OWTS Engineer under a separate cover.

Anticipated Path of Sewage Effluent
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the anticipated paths of future effluent released from the seepage pit(s) are vertically downward, and within 30 degrees from vertical, through the natural terrace deposits to the groundwater level interface. The anticipated path of effluent and estimated cone of saturation is illustrated on the attached Geologic Section B-B ‘(Plate 2). Based upon the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property, mounding on a confining bed or boundary, or daylighting of sewage effluent is not anticipated to occur. As shown on the attached Geologic Map, the area of the proposed seepage pits is located approximately 300 feet to the north of the toe of the bluff. Thus, LP considers the chance of daylighting of untreated wastewater system effluent to be remote.

Vertical Separation to Groundwater
Based on the aforementioned findings of our site groundwater observations, and LP’s findings and/or interpretations concerning historic site groundwater conditions and highest anticipated site groundwater conditions, the underlying groundwater level is not anticipated to rise to an elevation which is permanently less than 10 feet from the bottom of the proposed seepage pit(s).

SITE/SLOPE STABILITY
Past Slope Performance (Landslides and Rain Damage)
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic studies of the subject property, the area of the proposed seepage pit(s) is free from any recent rain-related damage such as landslides or mudflows. However, as stated in the Site Geology section ofthis report, landslide debris underlies the southern portion of the subject property. In addition, a surficial failure has been mapped to the south of the proposed residence and swimming pool. The mapped limits of the surficial failure and landsliding are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1).

Quantitative Surficial and Gross Stability
This engineering geologic study did not include quantitative engineering analysis or calculations associated with a determination of surficial and/or gross slope stability. A quantitative determination of slope stability of the subject property has been performed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer (CWG, 2019).
169
March 26, 2020 Page 19
Project No.: LP1431

CONCLUSIONS
General Findings
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, and our experience with similar projects, LP has concluded that the proposed project is feasible from an engineering geologic standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report, and those presented by the Project OWTS Engineer, are properly incorporated into the plans and implemented during construction.

Geologic Conditions
The engineering geologic conditions, hydrogeologic conditions, and geologic hazards of the subject property that can impact the engineering analysis and/or design requirements associated with the proposed project are described in detail in the previous sections of this report. It is recommended that the property owner, developer, Project Engineers (i.e. Geotechnical, OWTS, Civil, and/or Structural), Project Architect, and Contractor be familiar with the site engineering geologic conditions, hydrogeologic conditions, and geologic hazards presented in this report as well as the following engineering geologic recommendations concerning the proposed project.

Final Project Conclusion
Based upon the findings of our engineering geologic study, the proposed project will be free from geologic hazards such as landslides, slippage, settlement and the proposed project will not have an adverse effect upon the stability of the site or adjacent properties provided: 1.) The recommendations of the Project Engineering Geologist, Project Geotechnical Engineer, and Project OWTS Engineer are properly incorporated into the plans and implemented during construction; and 2.) The subject property and proposed structures are properly maintained.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
The proposed OWTS shall be designed by the Project OWTS Engineer or qualified professional in accordance with the requirements of the local regulatory agency and the following engineering geologic recommendations. Based on the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study, the seepage pit(s) of the proposed OWTS should be located in the approximate area of Borings # 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and/or 10 as illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). The exact locations, elevations, and construction specifications of all the components of the OWTS shall be provided by the Project OWTS Engineer.

The proposed seepage pit(s) should be sealed in the upper portion to avoid percolation into the surficial materials. Based on the topographic and geologic conditions in the area of the proposed seepage pit(s), a capping depth often (10) feet below existing grade (as measured on the downhill side of the pit) is currently recommended. It shall be noted that the currently recommended capping depth shall be considered a minimum based on the geologic data obtained to date and actual site conditions observed during construction may warrant a greater capping depth.

The bottom of any seepage pit should be a minimum of ten (10) feet above the underlying groundwater level.
170
March 26, 2020 Page 20
ProjectNo.: LP1431
It is recommended that seepage pit excavations be observed by the Project Engineering Geologist and City Inspector to verify that the encountered conditions are as anticipated and that proper construction and sealing practices have been followed. If desired or required by the City Inspector, the Project Engineering Geologist shall submit a final observation notice or report stating that the seepage pit(s) has been completed in compliance with our recommendations.

Excavation Characteristics
The test pits and borings excavated by LP within the site did not encounter extremely hard, cemented earth materials. However, it is possible that very hard layers are present within the subsurface at random locations and depths and may be encountered during construction of any proposed subsurface excavations. Should a very hard layer be encountered, the use of very heavy grading or drilling equipment, coring, or the use of high-impact hammers may be necessary.

The use of casing may be necessary during the drilling of foundation excavations as localized portions of the underlying terrace deposits are subject to caving. If the subsurface caving is observed to be severe or there is difficulty in advancing the casing to a suitable depth, the use of driller’s mud and/or other ground improvement measures (i.e. pressure grouting or permeation grouting) may also be required.

Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, it is anticipated that the underlying groundwater level will be encountered in a foundation excavation ~f the excavation is planned for a depth near or greater than the groundwater level illustrated on the provided geologic section(s).

Once encountered, the presence of groundwater may hinder the construction of the foundation excavations. If water is encountered in a foundation excavation, it shall be pumped from the excavation prior to the placement of concrete p~ the water column can be displaced/removed from the excavation by pumping concrete into the excavation from the bottom up through a tremie pipe which has been lowered to the bottom of the foundation excavation. In addition, the strength of concrete should be increased as specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Civil/Structural Engineer.

Temporary Excavations and Shoring
All temporary excavations, including overexcavations and utility trench excavations should comply with Cal/OSHA and any other applicable regulatory agency requirements. Excavations deeper than 5 feet shall be constructed as specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. No surcharge loads should be placed, nor should equipment operate, within a setback distance from the top of excavation side slopes equal to the depth of excavations. All excavations shall be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the excavation, nor be allowed to flow toward it.

Ifthe installation of shoring is required in order to provide stability for any temporary excavations, the shoring system(s) shall be designed by a qualified Civil/Structural Engineer as specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

Site Observations and Testing
Prior to the start of site preparation and/or construction, we recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held with the owner or developer, contractor, project engineers, City/County Inspector, 171
March 26,2020 Page 21
ProjeetNo.: LP1431
and LP to discuss the project. In addition, we recommend that LP be retained to perform the following tasks prior to and/or during construction.
• Review the OWTS plans to verify that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. If LP is not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. • Observe the seepage pit excavations prior to the placement of liners, perforated pipe, gravel, cap, and fill cover.
• All fill which is placed for engineering purposes shall be observed and tested by the Project Geotechnical Engineer to confirm proper site preparation, suitability of removal excavations, scarification, selection of suitable fill materials, and placement and compaction of fill.

Should any site observation reveal any unforeseen geologic or geotechnical hazard, the Project Engineering Geologist and/or the Project Geotechnical Engineer will recommend treatment.

Please advise LP at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation. A complete set of approved plans should be provided to the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to site grading and/or construction, and a set of signed and approved plans should be available on-site for review.

Responsibilities and Site Control
As a reminder, LP is not a licensed Land Surveyor, Civil Engineer, or Contractor and LP cannot perform the duties of a Land Surveyor, Civil Engineer, or Contractor. As such, the client, property owner, and/or developer should fully understand and acknowledge that LP is not responsible for the performance of work by third parties including, but not limited to, the project surveyor, civil engineer, grading contractor, construction contractor, and/or subcontractors. LP’s observation of the work of other parties on a project shall not relieve such parties of their responsibility to perform their work in accordance with applicable plans, specifications, and safety requirements. It should be noted that continuous or periodic monitoring by LP’s employees does not mean that LP is observing or verifying all site work. In addition, the engineering geologic observation services performed by LP do not include establishing or verifying lines and grades. LP will only make onsite observations appropriate to the field services provided by LP and will not relieve others of their responsibilities to perform, observe, or test the work.

It should be clearly understood and acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the client, property owner, developer, and/or their authorized agent(s) to insure that the engineering geologic information and recommendations provided by LP in association with the project are properly and thoroughly conveyed to the project architect(s), engineer(s), and/or contractor(s) so that they may be properly incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor(s) carries out such recommendations in the field. LP is not and will not be responsible for the acts, errors, or omissions of contractors or other parties associated with the project and the subject site.
172
March 26,2020 Page 22
ProjectNo.: LP1431
Plan Review
This engineering geologic study was performed and this report was prepared on the basis of the furnished project plans and/or information. Formal plans should be reviewed by LP. Should the plans differ substantially from the provided plans or information, additional engineering geologic exploration and analysis may be required.

ASSUMPTIONS and LIMITATIONS
General
This report presents the results of our engineering geologic study concerning the subject property and the proposed project. It is strongly recommended that this report be read in its entirety in order for the reader to completely and clearly understand LP’s engineering geologic findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the subject property and the proposed project. In addition, it is also recommended that the following sections be carefully read and completely understood as they provide information concerning the assumptions of this study and the limitations of this report. It should be noted that the following “Assumptions and Limitations” also pertain to any future addendum, supplemental, update, or final engineering geologic reports prepared by LP concerning the subject property and proposed project as well as any additional or revised Assumptions and Limitations presented therein. Any questions the reader may have concerning any portion of this report, or any portion of any future addendum, supplemental, update, or final reports concerning the site should be presented to LP prjLr to use of this or future reports.

Report Intent
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the described project.

Implementation of the advice presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations sections of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with the proposed project and should not be construed to imply total performance of the project. As previously stated, this report is issued with the understanding that it is the sole responsibility of the client, or their authorized agent(s), to insure that the engineering geologic information and recommendations provided in this report are conveyed to the project architect, engineers, and contractors so that they may be properly incorporated into the pian and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor carries out such recommendations in the field.

Report Use
LP has prepared this report concerning the subject property for the exclusive use of the client and their authorized agents and shall not be considered transferable. Prior to use by others, the subject site and this report must be reviewed by our office. Following review, additional work may be required to update and/or supplement this report. In addition, this report should not be utilized in order to form an opinion concerning the geologic/geotechnical conditions of the adjacent or surrounding properties as the findings presented in this report apply only to the explored area of the subject property and may not accurately reflect the underlying conditions of the surrounding area and/or the adjacent properties.
173
March 26, 2020 Page 23
ProjectNo.: LP1431
This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any company or person using this report for bidding or construction purposes shall perform such independent investigation, as they deem necessary, to satisfy themselves as to the surficial and subsurface conditions of the project site.

Accuracy of Topographic Base Map(s)
The engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis of a particular site and subsequent conclusions and recommendations with respect to a proposed project are, in some cases, highly dependent on certain factors which include, but are not limited to, the topographic conditions of the subject site, the adjacent slopes, and/or the locations of property lines. It should be noted that, at the time of this study, it is LP’s assumption that the provided topographic survey, grading plan, and/or site plan (utilized as a base for the geologic map(s) and geologic section(s) constructed as part of this study) accurately present the current topographic conditions ofthe site, adjacent slopes, and also accurately depict the locations of the existing structures (if present), easements, property lines, proposed structures, and/or proposed grades. It should be clearly understood that LP’s use ofthe provided topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan does not imply or verify the accuracy of the provided topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan. If at a time subsequent to the completion ofthis engineering geologic study and report, a revision is made to the site topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this report may be partially invalidated, wholly invalidated, or revised. In addition, supplemental engineering geologic exploration and analysis concerning the subject property and proposed project may also be necessary upon our review of the revised topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan.

Locations of Exploratory Excavations
The locations and elevations of the exploratory excavations of this study (if applicable), as presented on the various geologic illustrations contained in this report, were determined by use of a steel tape, brunton pocket transit, and interpolation between contours, topographic features, fixed monuments and/or structures illustrated on the supplied topographic map. The locations and elevations of the exploratory excavations of other consultants, if applicable, were approximately determined by our review and analysis of the various geologic maps and illustrations presented in the referenced reports containing the exploration data. The presented locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. If a more accurate method of determining the locations and elevations of the exploratory excavations was performed as part of this study, the particular method and degree of accuracy was discussed in the Scope of Work section of this report.

Variation in Subsurface Conditions
The engineering geologic conclusions and recommendations contained within this report concerning the proposed project are based on the findings ofthe tasks described in the Introduction section of this report with the assumption that the subsurface conditions within the site do not deviate appreciably from those observed or encountered during our geologic study. In view of the general geologic conditions described herein, based on our limited observations of the site and/or surrounding area, it should be understood that there is a possibility that different subsurface conditions exist within the site and/or adjacent area. Simply, if observation or exploration was performed at a particular location, it may not be indicative of the portions of the site not observed or explored. The nature and extent of variations in subsurface conditions may not become evident 174
March 26, 2020 Page 24
ProjectNo.: LP1431
until grading or construction. As such, it should be clearly understood that it is the responsibility of the client, their authorized agent(s), or contractor(s) to bring any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during grading or construction to the attention of the Project Engineering Geologist and the Project Geotechnical Engineer of record. In this way, supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum delay to the project.

Site Risks
It should be noted that ~jj building sites are subject to a certain degree ofrisk that cannot be wholly identified and/or entirely eliminated. Building sites are subject to many detrimental engineering geologic and/or geotechnical hazards including, but not limited to, the effects of water infiltration, erosion, concentrated drainage, settlement, expansive soil movement, expansive bedrock movement, seismic shaking, fault rupture, landsliding, and slope creep. Risks from these hazards can typically be reduced by employing qualified engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professionals. However, even with a thorough subsurface exploration and testing program performed by a qualified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, significant variability of the underlying earth materials may be present within the site. In addition, it is possible that latent (hidden) geologic hazards are present within the site which are concealed by earth materials, vegetation, existing structures, and hardscaping. If such defects are present, they are beyond the evaluation of the Project Engineering Geologist and/or the Project Geotechnical Engineer. In addition, the level of risk and/or the potential for negative site effects from many geologic/geotechnical hazards are highly dependent on the property owner or developer properly developing and maintaining the site, drainage facilities, slopes, and by correcting any deficiencies found during occupancy or use of the property. It should be clearly understood that owner and/or developer is responsible for retaining appropriate and qualified design professionals and contractors in developing the property and for properly maintaining the site and structures.

Retaining the services of an engineering geologic and/or geotechnical engineering consultant shall not be construed to relieve the owner, developer, or contractors of their responsibilities or liabilities.

Hazardous Materials
It should be clearly understood that the identification, sampling, testing, excavation, handling, and/or disposal of any hazardous materials, that may or may not be present within the site, is beyond the scope ofthis study. In the event such materials are discovered by additional site studies or are encountered during grading or construction, appropriate environmental studies and site mitigation/remediation work may be required. In addition, the client and/or property owner shall acknowledge and/or accept that LP has neither created nor contributed to the creation or existence of any hazardous, radioactive, toxic, irritant, pollutant, substance or constituent, or otherwise dangerous conditions at the site. All site generated non-hazardous and/or hazardous materials, including but not limited to samples, soil/rock cuttings, drilling fluids, decontamination fluids, development fluids, and used disposable protective gear and equipment are the property of the client and/or property owner.

Additional Work
Please be aware that the contract fee for our services to perform an engineering geologic study and prepare this report does not include additional work that may be required in association with the proposed project such as responses to report and/or plan review letters prepared by the building 175
March 26, 2020 Page 25
Project No.: LP1431
department or appropriate regulatory agency in association with you obtaining a grading/building permit, meetings, plan review by this firm, grading/construction observations, and/or any necessary geologic observation of the site with respect to the proposed project. Where additional services are requested or required, you will be billed on an hourly basis for our engineering geologic observation, exploration, consultation, and/or analysis in accordance with LP’s current Fee Schedule.

Report Expiration
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this report are valid as of the date of issuance.

However, it should be noted that changes in the surficial or subsurface conditions of a property may occur with the passage of time due to natural processes or works of man within the site or the adjacent area. Furthermore, changes in industry standards periodically occur due to code revisions, legislation, and broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to our review and remains valid for a maximum period of one (1) year from the date of issuance unless LP issues a written opinion of its continued validity thereafter.

Warrantee
The professional opinions and engineering geologic advice contained in this report are based on LP’s understanding of the proposed project, LP’s evaluation of available information, and LP’s general experience in the field of engineering geology. It should be noted that LP does not guarantee the engineering geologic interpretations presented in this report, only that the methods of this engineering geologic study and the professional engineering geologic opinions and advice provided in this report are generally consistent with the standard of care of the engineering geologic profession at this time for studies performed in the same locality and under similar project conditions. Simply, no warranty is expressed, implied, is made, or intended concerning this report, by furnishing of this report, or by any other oral or written statement by LP. 176
March 26. 2020 Page 26
Project No.: LP1431

REFERENCES
Site-Specific References (Subject Property, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway):

CalWest Geotechnical (2019), Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Custom Single-Family Residential Development, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No: 05905, March 4, 2019.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (2019), Geotechnical Review Sheet, re: New Single-Family Residence, Detached Garage, Guest House, Swimming Pool, Tennis Court, Tennis Cabana, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS), 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Review Log # 4549, October 25, 2019.

City of Malibu Department of Environmental Health (2019), Environmental Health Review Sheet, re: Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS), 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, October 17,2019.

George Quick Engineering Geologist (?), Engineering Geologic Investigation, Nicolas 2 Beach Parcel, 22650 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, Los Angeles County, California, Project No.: FG-296-77, Unknown Date -REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (1989), Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Minor Land Division, Map 21221, Malibu, California, Project No.: 1014.1, October 10, 1989— REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (1990), Response to County Review, Geotechnical and Engineering Geology, Tentative Map 21221, Malibu, California, Project No.: 1014.1, March 19, 1990 (revised June 13, 1990)-— REPORT IS INCOMPLETE. -
Land Phases, Inc. (2019), Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Custom Single-Family Residential Development, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, ProjectNo.: LP1431, February 20, 2019.

Land Phases, Inc. (2019a), Engineering Geologic Memorandum, Hydrogeologic Findings and Opinions Regarding the Percolation Characteristics in the Area of the Proposed Seepage Pits, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1431, May 31, 2019.

Land Phases, Inc. (2020), Addendum Engineering Geologic Report # 1, Proposed Custom Single-Family Residential Development, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:

LP1431, February 3,2020.

Michael, E. D. (?), Engineering Geology — Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit (Nicolas 2 Beach Parcel), Book 1, Pages 407 et seq. of Patents in Unincorporated Territory, County of Los Angeles, California, Project No.: 24004-S, Unknown Date — REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

R. T. Frankian and Associates (1974), Preliminary Geologic and Soil Investigation, Nicolas 2 Beach Parcel, Malibu, California, Project No.: 24004-S, January 29, 1974— REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Sitc-Specific References (33608 Pacific Coast Highway):

Cal West Geotechnical (2013), Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Remodeling ofthe Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, August 2,2013.

Cal West Geotechnical (2013a), Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report, Response to the City of Malibu Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, Dated October 30, 2013, Proposed Remodeling ofthe Existing 177
March 26. 2020 Page 27
ProjectNo.: LP1431
Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, November 12, 2013.

CalWest Geotechnical (2013b), Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report, Response to the City of Malibu Notice of Required Corrections, Environmental Health Planning Stage (Conformance Review), Dated November 15, 2013, Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) to the Proposed Residence, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, November 22, 2014.

CalWest Geotechnical (2014), Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report #2, Response to the City of Malibu Notice of Required Corrections, Environmental Health Planning Stage (Conformance Review), Dated January 24,2014, Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) to the Proposed Residence, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, January 28, 2014.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (1998), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: New Pile-Supported Retaining Wall To Support Existing Driveway (On Landslide-Affected Slope), 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, December 22, 1998.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (1999), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review (Planning Stage Approval) Sheet, re: Remedial Project: New Pile-Supported Retaining Wall to Support Existing Driveway (On Landslide-Affected Slope), Remedial Grading, Permit Retaining Wall At Toe of Landslide-Affected Slope, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, July 19, 1999.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (1999), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Remedial Project: New Pile-Supported Retaining Wall to Support Existing Driveway (On Landslide-Affected Slope), Remedial Grading, Permit Retaining Wall At Toe of Landslide-Affected Slope, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, August 10, 1999.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (1999), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Remedial Project: New Pile-Supported Retaining Wall to Support Existing Driveway (On Landslide-Affected Slope), Remedial Grading, Permit Retaining Wall At Toe of Landslide-Affected Slope, Dewatering Wells, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, October 1, 1999.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (2000), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Revisions to Permitted Retaining Wall With Pile Foundations: Additional Row of 7 Piles Behind Existing Row of Piles (already constructed), 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log #1541, August 14,2000.

City of Malibu Department ofBuilding and Safety (2000a), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Revisions to Permitted Retaining Wall With Pile Foundations: Additional Row of 7 Piles Behind Existing Row of Piles (already constructed), 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, September 19, 2000.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (2013), Geotechnical Review Sheet, re: New Single-Family Residential Development, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 3528, October 30, 2013.

City of Malibu Department ofBuilding and Safety (201 3a), Geotechnical Review Sheet (Planning Stage Approval), re: New Single-Family Residential Development, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log #3528, December 24, 2013.
178
March 26, 2020 Page 28
ProjectNo.: LPl43l
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1990), Geologic Review (Approval) Sheet, re: Walls, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, March 13, 1990.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1990a), Geologic Review (Approval) Sheet, re: Retaining Walls, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, April 3, 1990.

GeoSystems (1998), Stability of Emergency Driveway Repair, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-3, September 24, 1998.

GeoSystems (1998a), Soils and Engineering-Geologic Investigation For Proposed Remedial Retaining Wall, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-3R, September 30, 1998.

GeoSystems (1999), Response To City of Malibu Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet Dated December 22, 1998, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: G597-607-5, June 15, 1999.

GeoSystems (1999a), Additional Recommendation For Pavement, Retaining Wall and Foundation Design, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-6, August 9, 1999.

GeoSystems (1999b), Grading and Retaining Wall Plan Review, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: G597-607-7, September 1, 1999.

GeoSystems (1999c), Grading Plan Check Corrections, Retaining Wall and Slope Repair Plans, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-8, September 27, 1999.

GeoSystems (2000), Supplemental Retaining Wall Design Recommendations, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: G597-607-9, February 24, 2000.

GeoSystems (2000a), Response To City of Malibu Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet Dated August 23, 2000, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-lO, August 23, 2000.

GeoSystems (2000b), Response To City of Malibu Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet Dated September 19, 2000, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-11, December 22, 2000.

GeoSystems (2001), As-Built Report For Soldier Piles and Remedial Slope Repair, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: G597-607-12, March 8,2001.

GeoSystems, Inc. (2009), Groundwater Monitoring Well Observations, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-14, April 20, 2009.

Grover-Hollingsworth and Associates, Inc. (2012), Visual Geologic Observation, Lot 20, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, ProjectNo.: GH15644-T, June 15, 2012.

Land Phases, Inc. (2013), Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Remodeling ofthe Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LPI 079, July 17,2013.

Land Phases, Inc. (2013a), Addendum Engineering Geologic Report #1, Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1079, November 7,2013.
179
March 26. 2020 Page 29
ProjectNo.: LPl431
Land Phases, Inc. (2014), Engineering Geologic Update Letter (Revised Site Plan), Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:

LP1079, June 2,2014.

Land Phases, Inc. (2015), As-Built Engineering Geologic Report (Observation and Approval of 4 Friction Pile Excavations), Proposed Built-In Swimming Pool, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1079, February 13, 2015.

Land Phases, Inc. (2017), Report of Update Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Residential Additions, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1289, January 31, 2017.

Riggle, D. L. (1987), Private Sewage Disposal System Plan 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, February 23, 1987.

Sigma Consulting Engineers, Inc. (1999), Structural Calculations, Shotcreting Existing Retaining Wall, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 9991, November 22, 1999.

Site-Specific References (33610 Pacific Coast Highway):

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2010), Geotechnical Investigation Report For a Proposed Single Family Residence, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 09050, March 22, 2010.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2011), Geotechnical Investigation-Update Report For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 09050, July 27, 2011.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2012), Supplemental Geotechnical Letter For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 09050, August 3, 2012.

Site-Specific References (33616 Pacific Coast Highway):

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2009), Supplemental Letter, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, December 23, 2009.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2011), Geotechnical Investigation-Update Report For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, July 27, 2011.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (201 Ia), Supplemental Geotechnical Letter For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, August 3, 2012.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2012), Final Compaction Report For A Slope Restoration, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, November 12,2012.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2013), Supplemental Geotechnical Letter Addressing Proposed Utility Trench Along the Private Driveway Below 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.:
02068, January 3,2013.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (201 3a), Final Compaction Report For The Backfilling of the Basement Walls, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, September 16,2013.

Site-SpecWc References (33730 Pacific Coast Highway):

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012), Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, March 20, 2012.
180
March 26, 2020 Page 30
ProjectNo.: LP1431
GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012a), Supplemental Report No. 1, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, June 22, 2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012b), Supplemental Report No.2, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, October 8, 2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2013), Supplemental Report No.3, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, March 6,2013.

Site-Specific References (33740 Pac~flc Coast Highway):

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1998), Limited Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residence Stabilization, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibn, California, Project No.: 1614, December 1, 1998.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1999), Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, July 6, 1999.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1 999a), Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, December 16, 1999.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2002), Preliminary Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Guest House, Pool, and Tennis Court, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, August 9,2002.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2003), Update Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:
1614, June 12, 2003.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2004), Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, July 14, 2004.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2005), Update and Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, May 23, 2005.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2006), Update Letter, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:
1614, January 24, 2006.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2006a), Update Letter, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:
1614, June 29, 2006.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2008), Private Sewage Disposal System, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, August 8, 2008.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2010), Septic Setback, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:
1614, September 16, 2010.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2010a), Supplemental Report No. 5, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, October 29, 2010.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2011), Supplemental Report No. 6,33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, ProjectNo.: 1614, January 21,2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (201 Ia), Supplemental Report No. 7, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, February 11,2011.
181
March 26, 2020 Page 31
ProjectNo.: LP1431
GeoConcepts, Inc. (2011b), Supplemental Report No. 8, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, February 23, 2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (201 Ic), Update Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, April 22, 2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2011 d), Infiltration Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No,: 1614, May 12, 2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2011 e), Infiltration Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, May 17, 2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (201 If), Pile Analysis, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:
1614, June 29, 2011.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012), Foundation Report, Temporary Shoring, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, October 11,2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012a), Compaction Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, November 21,2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012b), Foundation Report, Proposed Retaining WaIl, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, December 13, 2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2013), Compaction Report, Sections of Driveway and Wall Backfill, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, ProjectNo.: 1614, August28, 2013.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2015), Final Compaction Report Summary, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, September 11,2015.

Land Phases, Inc. (2016), Report of Limited Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Emergency Removal of a Failing Retaining Wall, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1248, February 24, 2016.

Regional Geologic References:

Birkeland, P. W. (1972), Late Quaternary Eustatic Sea-Level Changes Along the Malibu Coast, Los Angeles County, California, p. 432-448, in: Journal of Geology, Volume 80.

Branum, D., Harmsen, S., Kalkan, E., Petersen, M., and Wills, C. (2008), Earthquake Shaking Potential For California, Map Sheet 48 (revised 2008), California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey.

California Department of Conservation (1994), Fault Evaluation Report, Malibu Coast Fault, Los Angeles County, California, Division of Mines and Geology FER-229, October 3, 1994.

California Department of Consdrvation (1997), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, Division of Mines and Geology.

California Department of Conservation (2002), State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Triunfo Pass Quadrangle, Division of Mines and Geology, February 7, 2002.

California Department of Conservation (2002a), Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Triunfo Pass 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Report 069, Division of Mines and Geology.
182
March 26, 2020 Page 32
Project No.: LP1431
California Department of Conservation (2018), Special Publication 42, Earthquake Fault Zones; A Guide For Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners For Assessing Fanlt Rupture Hazards in California, California Geological Survey, Revised 2018,83 p.

Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C. J. (2003), The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, June 2003.

Dibblee, T. W. (1990), Geologic Map ofthe Point Mugu and Triunfo Pass Quadrangles, Ventura and Los Angeles Connties, California, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-29, Scale 1:24,000.

Field, E. H., Biasi, G. P., Bird, P., Dawson, T. E., Felzer, K. R., Jackson, D. D., Johnson, K. M., Jordan, T. H., Madden, C., Michael, A. J., Milner, K. R., Page, M. T., Parsons, T., Powers, P. M., Shaw, B. E., Thatcher, W. R., Weldon, R. J., II, and Zeng, Y. (2013), Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013—1165,97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, httn://nubs.usas.aov/of/2013/l 165/.

Fumal, T. E. and Tinsley, J. C. (1985), Mapping Shear-Wave Velocities of Near-Surface Geologic Materials, pp. 127- 150, in: Evaluating Earthquake Hazards In the Los Angeles Region An Earth-Science Perspective, Ziony, J. 1. (editor), United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Gath, E. (1992), Geologic Hazards and Hazard Mitigation in the Los Angeles Region, pp. 3-32, in: Engineering Geologic Practice in Southern California, Pipkin, B. W., and Proctor, R. J. (editors), Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Special Publication No. 4, Star Publishing Co., Belmont, California, 769 p.

Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A. (2010), Fault Activity Map of California —2010, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, California Geologic Data Map Series May No. 6,, Scale 1:750,000.

Lazarte, C. A., Bray, J. D., Johnson, A. M., and Lemmer, R. E. (1994), Surface Breakage of the 1992 Landers Earthquake and Its Effects on Structures, Bulletin ofthe Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 547-561, June 1994.

Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W. (1976), Geology of California, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Petersen M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., and Reichle, M. 5. (1996), Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08.

Petersen, M., Frankel, A., Harmsen, S., Mueller, C., Hailer, K., Wheeler, R., Wesson, R., Zeng, Y., Boyd, 0., Perkins, D., Luco, N., Field, E., Wills, C., and Rukstales, K., (2008), Documentation forthe 2008 Update ofthe United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008—1128,61 p.

Real, C. R. (1987), Seismicity and Tectonics ofthe Santa Monica- Hollywood-Raymond Hills Fault Zone and Northem Los Angeles Basin, Recent Reverse Faulting in the Transverse Ranges, California, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339, pp. 113-124.

Wallace, R. E. (1990), The San Andreas Fault System, California: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 283 p.

Ziony, J. I. and Yerkes, R. F. (1985), Evaluating Earthquake and Swface-Faulting Potential, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region — An Earth-Science Perspective, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, 505 p.
183
March 26, 2020 Page 33
ProjectNo.: LP1431
General Geologic/Geotechnical References:

Bates, R. L. and Jackson, J. A., editors (1984), Dictionary of Geological Terms, Third Edition, American Geological Institute, p.571.

Bolt, B. A., Horn, W. L., Macdonald, G. A., and Scott, R. F., (1977—revised), Geological Hazards — Second Edition:

Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York, 330 p.

Bolt, B. A. (1993), Earthquakes: W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 331 p.

Burger, H. R. (1992), Exploration Geophysics ofthe Shallow Subsurface: New Jersey, Prentice Hall PTR, 489 p.

California Department of Conservation (2002), How Earthquakes and Their Effects Are Measured, California Geological Survey Note 32, revised April 2002, 4 p.

California Department of Water Resources, (1991), California Well Standards: Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Cathodic Protection Wells: Bulletin 74-90 (supplement to Bulletin 74-81), Sacramento, 82 p.

Compton, R. R. (1985), Manual of Field Geology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 398 p.

Driscoll, F. G. (1989), Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition: Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., St. Paul Minnesota, 1089 p.

Folk, R. L. (1974), Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks: Austin, Texas, Hemphill Publishing Co., 182 p.

Fetter, C. W. (1994), Applied Hydrogeology — Third Edition: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 691 p.

Freidman, G. M, Sanders, J. E., and Kopaska-Merkel, D. C. (1992), Principals of Sedimentary Deposits — Stratigraphy and Sedimentology: New York, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 717 p.

Heath, Ralph C. (1989), Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, United Stated Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p.

International Code Council, Inc. (2019), 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes I and 2, Effective January 1,2020.

Lowe, J., III and Zaccheo, P. F. (1991), Subswface Explorations and Sampling, Chapter 1, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, Edited by H-Y Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 1-71.

Munsell Color (2000), Munsell Soil Color Charts, 4300 44tI~ Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49512.

Munsell Color (2009), Munsell Rock Color Book, 4300 44t~~ Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49512.

Naeim, F. and Anderson, J. C. (1993), Classification and Evaluation of Earthquake Records for Design, The 1993 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 288 pp.

Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. (1989), Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using CPT and CPTU, Soil Mechanics Series No. 120, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. Canada, November.

Robertson, P. K. (1990), Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 151-158.
184
March 26, 2020 Page 34
Project No.: LP143]
Seed, H. B., Chaney, R. C., and Pamukcu, 5. (1991), Earthquake Effects on Soil-Foundation Systems, Chapter 16, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, Edited by H-Y Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 594-672.

Southern California Earthquake Center (1999), Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Martin, G.

R. and Lew, M. Co-Chairs and Editors, University of Southern California, March 1999.

State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists (1998 - revised), Geologic Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports: Sacramento, 8 p.

Tucker, M. E. (1991), Sedimentary Petrology: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 260 p.

Turner, K. A., and Schuster, R. L. — editors (1996), Landslides —Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board, Special Report 247, Academy Press, Washington D.C., 673 p.

Aerial Photographs Reviewed:

California Coastal Commission (1972), Oblique Aerial Photo, Project Image No. 7234067, 1972.

California Coastal Commission (1987), Oblique Aerial Photo, Project Image No. 7234067, 1987.

Fairchild Aerial Surveys (1928), Flight C-300, Frames No. H-23 and -24, Approximate Scale: 1”equals 1,700’.

Google Earth (2020), Google Earth Aerial Imagery, Accessed Via Internet.

United States Department ofAgriculture (1952), AXJ-1 K-I 3 and -14, Approximate Scale: I “equals 1,800’, November 3, 1952.
185

FIGURES
- Land Phases, Inc. -
186
SITE LOCA TION MAP ~a~)&: ?~y’~
•1 4
REFERENCE: THOMAS GUIDE MAP, PAGE 626-86
w E
JOB NUMBER: N J~1 DP ESINC LP1431
CONSULTING LNOINtERING GEOLOGISTS
JOB NAME:

HAAGAN
0 54)0 1000 154)0 2000 3000 feet
~ I I I FIGUREI S
s~cr~; ~~~ra’rr q
~:tt. ‘3 ?*%5~~3

NICHOLAS CANYON
COUNTY BEACH C.
14’

PACIFIC
187
REFERENCE: U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE TRIUNFO PASS QUADRANGLE

SITE LOCATION MAP
w E
JOB NUMBER: N ‘ DPHASESIH LP 1431
CONSULTIWG ENSIKEERING GE0LeSISTS
JOB NAME:

HAAGAN
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 feet
I—I—I I I FIGURE2 S
9r c.
- .

I. -.— I
—
RoesIrft KEVU
MnaoRIAIj5flflmzAaI
4’. ..;
.~
.7 ..
fl~
IL
I-
.4
• - I
• .• ~ I. —
- -
‘I
188
0~
SI
_. —

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
a
/9
0’
U C
Os
•qoAsr
-
60 Ttiks
57, C 80 Ttuc ir
Ytu ~ db
Ttus
REFERENCE: GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE POINT MUGU-TRIUNFO PASS QUADRANGLES, BY DIBBLEE, JR., 1990 E
JOB NUMBER: N DPHASESINC LP 1431
~ CONSULTING ENOIKECUING GEOLOGISTS
JOB NAME:

HAAGAN
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 feet
III I I FIGURE3 S
‘Ttub a~
189

FAULTMAP
REFERENCE: FAULT MAP, PORTION OF FIG. SA, FAULT EVALUATION REPORT FER-229, BY J. TREIMAN AND THE CDMG, 1994 w
JOB NUMBER: N CONSULT DPHASESNc LP 1431
ING ENG NEENING GEOLOGIST!
JOB NAME:

E HAAGAN
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000feet
~ I I I FIGURE4 S
190

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Liquefaction: Areas where occurance of liquefaction, or local geologloat, Q) groundeotechnical displacements and groundwater such thatconditions mitigationk’dicate as defined a potencial in Public Resources for permanent Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
w
Earthquake-Induced Landslides: Areas where previous occvrmnce of landslide movement, or local topographt geological and subsufface water conditions indicate a polencjal for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required REFERENCE: SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONE MAP OF THE TRIUNFO PASS QUADRANGLE, LOS ANGELES COUNfl~ CA.; C.D.M.G., 2002 JOB NUMBER: N LP 1431

CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
JOB NAME:

E HAAGAN
0 ~
1000 2000 3000 4000 S000feet
I I I FIGURE5
S
191
finn-a

SUBJECT PROPER
of Malibu
flt5(TW
Inn
A
A

0.13 11r48tW
REFERENCE: PEAK ACCEL. MAP FOR NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, MALIBU, CALIFORNIA, BY FUGRO Legend
C
uS
—04— Peak Gmunflaaation Caifeur (g)
Sfl~s
A Selmnogmph SI~na Near Oty of Meflu dm1 rearded die
~b4fldJuu Eafljdw
~cn Oty of I~bs BcxrcWy
w
JOB NUMBER: N I PHASESINC LP 1431
~ CONSULTINC EWSINEERINI ~EoLeGISTS
JOB NAME:

E HAAGAN
0 10000 20000 3000 feet
I—Li I FIGURE6 S

CITY OF MALIBU GROUND RESPONSE MAP
192

APPENDIX A

LOGS OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS
- Land Phases, Inc. -
193
LOG OF BORING # 1 (B-i)
(Pagel ofl) COWSGLTIH$ EIIIHEEIIM6 EOIIIISI$
Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated : 10/2/IS Weather Conditions Sunny warm Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged : 10/2/IS Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Brett Scott, CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Drill-Rig Checked By Jake Holt, CEG — Project No.:LP1431 — Auger Diameter 24-inches —
._ Sample Condition Sampler Type
≥~‘ Remoulded SS Split Spoon
V
= ~ .2 Undisturbed ST Shelby Tube C
z
S ° ‘~. a Lost, No Recovery PS Piston Sampler
0 D 0 rrl-, Bulk DCDiamondCoresar 2
.5
£
Surf
Elev U’ -&
~
a a 0 S Structure/Comments
a & 122 ~ £is Eit 23 ~ ‘~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 DQøw~0~ 0 0-0,5’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (afl
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL moderate brown to brownish black, medium-grained, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense, abundant organics, gravel component consists of subangular to jsubrounded, pebble-size clasts
0— 122 ‘-ti
5— ‘ 117
. 7~
10— 112 ‘// ,/,
CL 7-
15— 107
~
,/,
20— - 102 —
//
25--97
,//
30—92
~ SC’/
40- ‘ 82 ‘/.‘
‘/, ,/,
. 7, ‘1’ ‘7,
, 1/,
45- 77
. ‘7, ‘7’,
50 0.5-50’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL moderate brown to dark reddish
brown, fine-grained, dry to slightly moist, dense, gravel component consists of subangular, pebble- to cobble-size clasts of sandstone t~5’, SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL, dark redd sh brown and
moderate brown, sand fraction is fine- to coarse-grained, slightly moist, stiff, gravel component consists of subangular, pebble-size lasts of sandstone
@10’, Cobble-size clasts present
@11’, Large cobble- to boulder-size casts present
@15’, Increase in percentage of SAND, gravel component consists of pebble- to cobble-size clasts of sandstone
@20’, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, moderate brown to dark
reddish brown, medium- to very coarse-grained slightly moist, dense, gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble- to cobble-size clasts
‘-@25’, Sandstone clast in tip of sampler
@30’ Driller notes harder drilling
@35’, Abundant large cobble-size clasts, driller is advancing boring prior to next sample
@37-39’, Grinding and drill-rig chaffer due to abundant GRAVEL @45’, Increase in percentage of SAND, very coarse-grained @50’, Abundant cobble-size clasts
Total Depth: 50 feet Surface Conditions Moderately level dirt area No groundwater
No caving Notes Boring backhlled with spoils and tamped to grade by drillers after 0 5 feet of fill downhoie ogging
I,,
0,
0 0
a
194
,~IAN IPHASBINC LOG OF BORING #2 (B-2)
CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLIGISIS (Page 1 of 1)
Project Name: Charals Haagan
Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy.

Malibu, CA
Project No.: LP1 431
Date Excavated : 10/2J18
Date Logged
Drilling Company
Drilling Method
Auger D ameter
10/2/18
RC Drilling, Inc.

Lo-Drill Drill-Rig
24-inches
weather Conditions Sunny warm
ii,a,
Li
C
‘C
a
4,
0 Elevation Datum
Logged By
Checked By
Surf
Elev
114
‘C
0-
4, 0
a,
a
Eit
U,
Sample Condition — Undisturbed
Lost, No Recoveiy
-~ Bulk
C
C
C
0 0
C
‘ft
0 C
a
4’
0,
E
it
Cl,
Cl, 0
0,
D
0 ‘C
a
It
C,
‘5, a
(0
C
C
0 0
C
0 0
0 From Survey
Brett Scott CEG
Jake Holt CEG
Sampler Type
SS Split Spoon
ST Shelby Tube
PS Piston Sampler
DC Diamond Core Bar

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS
Structure/Comments
-J
CL
CL
SC
114
109
104
99 94
• 89
• 84
• 79
• 74

PERCOLATION TEST BORING
0-1.5’ SOIL (Qs)
SANDY CLAY; browish gray to pale brown, sand fractIon is ~e-grained, dry, stiff, rootlets
1 5-50’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL; dark reddish brown and moderate brown sand fraction is fine- to coarse-grained, slightly moist, stiff ravel component consists of subangular, pebble-size clasts of andstone
@5 Cobble-size clast of sandstone in tip sampler
@10’, Abundant pebble-size clasts
‘-@15’, Slight increase in percentage of SAND, medium-grained @25’, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL; moderate brown to dark
reddish brown, medium- to very coarse-grained, slightly moist, dense, gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble- to cobble-size clasts
@32’, Slight increase in percentage of fines, slightly moist 0—
5—
10-
1 H
20—
25—
40-
45-’
50—
V
‘/7
‘/7
I
I
7,
‘.7-’
/7
/7
/7
/7
‘/7
7/,
7/,
7,
7’ 7/,
‘/7
/7
‘/1
‘/1
‘/17/,
/7
‘/7
‘/7
4,
/7
S
0 0)
0,
4~
0 a
Ui
C
40 =
a
-S
U,
0 Ui
0 0,
0,
-S
0,
0 0
69 Total Depth 50 feet Surface Conditions: Moderately level dirt area No groundwater
No caving Notes: Boring backfilled to a depth of 40 feet and then gravel-packed to No fill grade prior to percolation testing
195
J~8~~011JPNASE5INc LOG OF BORING #3 (B-3)(Page 1 ofl) E~INEEIING GEOLIGISIS Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated 10/2/18 Weather Conditions Sunny warm Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 10/2/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Brett Scott, CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Drill-Rig Checked By Jake Holt CEG — Project No:LP1431 — Auger Diameter 24-inches
Sample Condition Sampler Type
~ Remoulded SS Split Spoon
~0 Undisturbed ST Shelby Tube C
0 t
so e
0 ~ Lost, No Recovery PS Piston Sampler
U
c Surf ,~ ~, ~ g ~ ‘-‘ Bulk DCDiamondCoreBar .2
00 5 EIev ~ ~ ‘~. ‘~. ~ o s Structure/Comments

0. & 114 Ci) .- is 2 ~‘ ö MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 DOu,com0~ 0 0- 114 CL ,-‘ PERCOLATION TEST BORING
0-1.5 SOIL (Qs)
5- 109 ~— J
/ 1.5’40’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
/ / Interbedded mixtures of SAND, CLAY, and GRAVEL consistent with what was encountered in Boring #2.
10— 104 /
Boring #3 not logged in detail due to close proximity to Boring #2 • 2/
15—99 -~
//
- /7
- /./
20—94 //
- (L-S~’’
- 7’
25- ‘89
/7
30- ‘84 2’
‘-7
— 2/
~ 35- 79
4 ‘-7
// 40—74 —- ________________________________________
45— -69
Total Depth: 40 feet Surface Conditions Moderately level dirt area, No groundwater
No caving Notes Bonng gravel-packed to grade prior to percolation testing No fill
196
j..~1ANIPl’IAS6Nc LOG OF BORING #4 (B-4)
CONStIluG ENGINEENINC ~EOLIGlSTS (Page 1 of I)
Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated 1012)18 Weather Conditions Sunny warm Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 1012/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu! CA Drilling Company : RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Brett Scott, CEG Drilling Method La-Drill Drill-R g Checked By Jake Holt CEG Project No.: LP1431 Auger Diameter 24-inches
a, a,
C
‘C
a
a,
0 Surf
Elev
116
-C
a
0 C
a,
a
Eit
0 C
0 C
0 C-)
a,
S
(0
0 Sample Condition — Undisturbed
Lost, No Recovery
Bulk
a,
a
I—
a,
a
EC,
0 0, 0
Co
D
15’
a
>,
to
=
a,
0 0
C,
-c
a
C,
(9
C
S
0 0
Sampler Type
SS Split Spoon
ST Shelby Tube
PS Piston Sampler
DC Diamond Core Bar

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS
Structure/Comments
CL
L-S

PERCOLATION TEST BORING
0-1.5’ SOIL (Qs)
1~~NDYCLA’~ brow~h gray to pale brow~ dr~ sfiff, rootlets — —

1.5-40 NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Interbedded mixtures of SAND, CLAY, and GRAVEL consistent with what was encountered in Boring #2.

Boring #4 not logged in detail due to close proximity to Boring #2 /‘ -j
7,
7,
//
//
/ .7
7/
2 /
//
/7
2 /
7/
<1
//
/
/7
‘/
2’ ~7
/7
/ 7
/ /
/ •/
/7
/7
,7
/7
7,
0— -116
5— ‘111
10— 106
15— 101
20— -96
25— 91
30— ‘86
35— 81
40— 76
71 50—
Total Depth 40 feet Surface Conditions: Moderately level dirt area.

No groundwater
No caving Notes Boring gravel-packed to grade prior to percolation tesUng Nofill
2 it
0-
0 a
2 0-
uJ
C
I,
0 I
I-,

0. U,
C.,
LU
0 0.
a
-a
0!
0 197
,j~’1~DrHA5E5INc LOG OF BORING #5 (B-5) CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS (Page 1 of 1) Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated : 10/3/18 Weather Conditions Sunny warm Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged : 10/3/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company : RC Drilling Logged By Brett Scott. CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Drill-Rig Checked By Jake Holt, CEG Project No. LPI 431 Auger Diameter 24-inches
0 0
LI
C
‘C

0. 0
0 Surf
Elev
116
‘C
a
0 0
0 a
E
0 C
0 C
0 C)
0 0
0 Sample Condition
Remoulded
Undisturbed
Lost, No Recovery
Bulk
0 a
I
0 a
E
0 ‘5- a
0 C
0 0
0 0
0 0
C)
a
It
CD
C
0 0
Sampler Type
SS Split Spoon
ST Shelby Tube
PS Piston Sampler
DC Diamond Core Bar

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS
Structure/Comments
CL
L-S

PERCOLATION TEST BORING
~
0-1.5’ SOIL (Qs)
-J

1.5-40’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Interbedded mixtures of SAND, CLAY, and GRAVEL consistent with what was encountered in Boring #2.

Boring #5 not logged in detail due to close proximity to Boring #2 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0— 116
5— ‘111
10— 106
15— 101
20— -96
25— 91
30— 86
35 61
40- 76
45— 71
50—
Total Depth 40 feet Surface Conditions Moderately level d rt area No groundwater
No caving Notes Boring gravel-packed to grade prior to percolation testing No fill
I’,
a.
0 2
a
LU
C
a
0 x
a
0 0
LU
-7
0 0-
0-
-J
0,
198
j~iANDPHAS6INc LOG OF BORING #6 (B-6)
C8NSULTIIIS LIGINEEHING GEIIIGISTS (Page 1 of 1)
Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated 10/3/18 Weather Conditions Sunny wami Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 10/3/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Brett Scott. CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Dril Rig Checked By Jake Halt, CEG Project No.: LP1 431 Auger Diameter 24-inches
Surf
Elev
105
‘C
a
0 C
0 a
EIt
0,
C
0 C
0 0
0 I.,
0 Sample Condition
Remoulded
Undisturbed
Lost, No Recovery
Bulk
a,
a
I
0 a
E
It
0,
Co 0
Co
D

0. 10C
0 0
0 C,
‘C
a
C,
C,
C
0 0
Sampler Type
SS Split Spoon
ST Shelby Tube
PS Piston Sampler
DC Diamond Core Bar

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS
Structure/Comments
0-6’ ARTIFICIAL FILL (at)
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dusky yellowish brown fine- to
coarse-grained, dry to slightly moist, medium dense, gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble-size clasts of sandstone
SM
SC
SC
J
‘/J
‘/7
‘/1
/1
‘/7
7, //
//
‘4“11/,
7,/7
.7/
‘/1
‘/7
/7
/7
‘/7
F,
//
‘/1
‘/7
‘/7
‘/77,7/
‘4, ‘7 /
‘/7
‘/7
‘/7
‘/7
6-8’ SOIL (Qs)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, moderate brown to dark yellowish brown, fine- to occasiona coarse-grained, dry to slightly moist, Imedium dense to dense gravel component consists of subangular ~subrounded, pebble-size clasts of sandstone
8-50 NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL; moderate brown to dark reddish brown, fine-grained, dry to slightly moist dense gravel component \consists of subangular, pebble- to cobble-size clasts of sandstone t©l 5’ Slight increase in percentage of fines SAND is
coarse-grained
@38’, Abundant GRAVEL drill-rig chatter slight increase in moisture content
@40’, Slightly moist to moist
0 0 ____
L1
C
=
a
a,
0 0— ‘105
5— 100
10— 95
15— 90
20— -85
25— ‘80
30— ‘75
35— 70
40— 65
45— 60
50—
Total Depth: 50 feet Surface Conditions Moderately level dirt area No groundwater
No caving Notes Bonng backfilled with spoils and tamped to grade by drillers after 6 feet of fill downhole logg ng
B
It
Co
0-
-J
0 i.
2 a
Lu
C
I,
it‘0
‘0
a--J
0,
C-,
LU
0 0-
a- -i
-J
0,
0 199
h~1 DPIIASESw LOG OF BORING #7 (B-7)(Pagel ofi) COHSOLTIWG EIGINEERlW~ ~EI1IIlS1S Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated 10/3/18 Weather Conditions Sunny warn, Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 10/3/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Brett Scott. CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Oh I-Rig Checked By Jake Holt, CEG — Project No.:LP1431 — Auger Diameter 24-inches —
Sample Condition Sampler Type
~ Remoulded SS Split Spoon
‘0
~ U) Undisturbed ST Shelby Tube C
=w zS
0 0 p Lost, No Recovery PS Piston Sampler
LI.
.c Surf o -~•‘ Bulk DCDiamondCoresar S Cs
~ Elev CO a a
~ 109 ~ E E ~ o S Structure/Comments 0.
it it ~ ‘5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 DøcOo~~0~ 0
0- 109 c’ 0-2’ SOIL (Qs)
— 4 SANDY CLAY browish gray to pale brown sand fraction is ~-grained,dry,stiff,rooUets J
5- 104 ,4 2-30’ NON-MARINE ERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL; moderate brown to dark reddish 4/ brown, fine-grained, dry to slightly moist! dense, gravel component consists of subangular, pebble- to cobble-size clasts of sandstone 10— -99 4’
@11’. Color change to very dark red, increase in moisture content 15- -94
SC//
20— ‘59 //
7,
- //
- .4’ 7’/ //
_i __________________________
~ 35— 74
w
C
I0
a
I
45 .54

0. -s
Co -
0 -
Lu
~
~. TotalDepth: 30 feet Surface Conditions: Moderately level dirt pathway a No groundwater
~ No caving Notes Bonng backfllled with spoils and tamped to grade by dii lers after ~ No fill downhole logging
200
j~I~DrHA56INc LOG OF BORING #8 (B-B)(Page 1 ofl) NSULIIHG ENGINEflIN8 GEOLIGISTS Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated : 10/3 and 10/4/18 Weather Conditions Sunny warm Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 10/3 and 10/4/18 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company RC Drilling Inc Logged By Jake Holt CEG Drilling Method Limited Access Drill-Rig Checked By Jake Holt CEG — Project No.:LP1431 — Auger Diameter 24-inches —
.-~ Sample Condition Sampler Type
~ Remoulded SS Split Spoon ~3
V
~ Undisturbed ST Shelby Tube C
n
° °• °• 8 Lost, No Recovery PS Piston Sampler
0 U
c Surf, o ~ ~ 8 ~ Bulk DCDiamondCoresar.
.c Elev, 0 = 3. a
~ 80 ~ Eit itE .2~ o~‘ ‘~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS Structure/Comments 0 DO00~0~
@5, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, moderate brown, dry, dense, gravel component consists of angular to subrounded, very coarse-grained sand to pebble-size clasts of miscellaneous rocks @10, Less fines, SAND fraction is fine- to medium-grained, trace subangular to subrounded pebble layers
@12.5,3-inch thick GRAVEL horizon, 10-degree dip to south 14-26’ MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qtm)
SAND; dark yellowish orange, medium-grained, slightly moist, dense, gravel component consists of subrounded to rounded, pebble- to small cobble-size clasts of miscellaneous rocks, horizontally stratified
@17.5’, GRAVELLY SAND to SANDY GRAVEL, mottled dark
yellowish orange and moderate brown, slightly moist, dense, massive, gravel component consists of subangular to rounded, pebble- to cobble-sIze clasts of miscellaneous rocks
@21’, SAND with GRAVEL; dark yellowish orange, medium-grained, slightly moist, dense, gravel component consists of subrounded to rounded, pebble- to small cobble-size clasts of miscellaneous rocks, occassional boulders, horizontally stratified, non-cohesive, aving
-@22’, InCrease in moisture content
-@25-26’, Abundant well rounded cobbles, water seepage, use of tore bucket required to remove large cobbles
-@26’ Horizontal erosional contact with underlying bedrock 26-50’ INTRUSIVE VOLCANICS (Ti)
BASALT; grayish green with abundant iron- and manganese-oxide itaining, fine- to medium Crystaline, olivine rich, porpheritic, nassive, somewhat friable to non-friable, moderately hard to hard, noderately fractured, moderately weathered
-@28’, Less degree of weathering, BASALT is gray sh green nassive, strong, hard, slightly fractured, slightly weathered use of ,ore bucket required to advance
‘@30’, Drillling halted on 10/3/18, Drilling resumes on 10/418 at 8:00am, switch back to fight-auger
Total Depth 50 feet Surface Conditions Moderately level pad area Water seepage as noted
caving as noted Notes: Boring backfilled with spoils and tamped to grade by drillers after No fill downhole logging.
0-14’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
SILTY SAND with trace GRAVEL; moderate brown, dry, dense, massive, gravel component consists of angular to subrounded. pebble-size clasts of miscellaneous rocks
SM
SC
SP
SP
VL
- 60
• 55
• 50
• 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
0—
5—
15-~
20—
25—
30:
35 40:
50—
@26’, Unable to downhole log
below depth of 26 feet due to
water seepage and caving
hazard, remainder of boring
logged by observation of drilling
B spoils and samples
a
it
(9
0-
II
0 a
Ui
a
I
C’,
0-
C,,
C-,
Lii
0 0-
0-
-J
0,
0 (N
0 c~J
(N
0 201
iM~, DPHAS6INC LOG OF BORING #9 (B-9)(Page 1 ofl) LDM$ (HIMEEKIME 6EOLHISIS Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated : 3/9/20 Weather Conditions Cloudy cold Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged : 3/9/20 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu, CA Drilling Company : RC Drilling, Inc. Logged By Jake Halt, CEG Drilling Method La-Drill Drill-Rig Checked By Jake Halt, CEG — Project No.:LP1431 — Auger Diameter 24-inches —
Sample Condition Sampler Type ~2
~ Remoulded 55 Spit Spoon C- C ‘O
0 Undisturbed ST Shelby Tube C
=0 z2
t
0 ~ ~- E ~- (5 Lost No Recovery PS Piston Sampler c Surf (5 2 •— Bulk DCDiamondCoreBar S 0 ~
.C Elev. Ci) E a a s Structure/Comments
a & 112 i! ~‘ 6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 DCwo)~05 0
0- 112 eLY,’ PERCOL4TIONTESTBORING
/ ‘ 0-1 5’ SOIL (Qs)
5--I07 ~NDYCLA’flow~hgraythp&ebrondr)~sUff,rootlets — J / / 1.5-40’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
/‘
• Interbedded mixtures of SAND, CLAY, and GRAVEL consistent • ~ with what was encountered in Boring #2.
10— -102 •
• ‘, Boring #9 not logged in detail due to close proximity to Boring #2 • /~
• //
15— ‘97
//
• //
• //
20- ‘92
• (L-S -
//
/,
25— 07
//
30— -62 >/
//
~35--77 ~
- /‘
• /1
// • /‘
- //
140—72 —~- ___________________________________________
45— ‘67
0, -
-i
I
0 -
~ so
~ TotalDepth: 40 feet Surface Conditions, Moderately level dirt area No groundwater
No caving Notes Boring gravel-packed to grade prior to percolation testing Nofill
202
j~iANDPNASE5Nc LOG OF BORING # 10 (B-b)
CONSULTING ENGINEEIING GEOLOGISTS (Page 1 of 1)
Project Name: Charals Haagan Date Excavated 3/9/20 Weather Conditions Cloudy, cold Project Location: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy. Date Logged 3/9/20 Elevation Datum From Survey Malibu! CA Drilling Company RC Drilling Inc. Logged By Jake Holt, CEG Drilling Method Lo-Drill Dril -Rig Checked By Jake Holt, CEG Project No.: LP1431 Auger Diameter 24-nches
a,
0 U
C
.0
a
a, 0
Surf.

Elev
118
.0

0. a, C
a,
a
EC,
0 C
a,
C
0 0
0 L0
0 2
Sample Condition
Reinoulded
Undisturbed
Lost, No Recove~~
Bulk
a,
a
a,
a
E
C, 0
‘5. a
0,
C
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
C-)
.0
a
C,
(9
C
0 0
0 Sampler Type
55 Split Spoon
STShelbyTube
PS Piston Sampler
DC Diamond Corn Bar

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS
‘113
Structure/Comments
CL
L-S

PERCOLATION TEST BORING
0-1.5 SOIL (Qs)
~NDYCLA’v~bow~hgaytop&ebrnwn~csUff,rootIeft — —

1.5-40’ NON-MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
Interbedded mixtures of SAND, CLAY, and GRAVEL consistent with what was encountered in Boring #2.

Boring ft 10 not logged in detail due to close proximity to Boring #2 -4)
7/
7/
7/
//
7,
//
//
/
>‘ //
//
//
.7 /
/
/,7/
/7
/7
0—
5-
10-
15-~
20—
25—
30—
35 40-
45-
118
108
103
- 98
93 88
83 • 78
• 73
Total Depth: 40 feet Surface Conditions: Moderately level dirt area.

No groundwater
No caving Notes. Boring gravel-packed to grade prior to percolation testing No fill
S
0 0.
5,
0 a
0 a
C
a
a
r
C-,

0. 0,
F
C.) w
0 0.

0. -J
S
203

MAP POCKET
- Land Phases, Inc. -
204
• GEOLOGIC MAP &~LANA flOP?

GEOLOGIC SYMBOLS
I.. ~fl’N
Ssd~k:
205

GEOLOGIC SECTIONSA & B
• ~
N
N - Gedo~aSeWaflAa
br
• .~:rr
rtu. N, N
0$’
GeoI* Sedjao 8-8’
I I
206
ATTACHMENT 4
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227

COASTAL ENGINEERING REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Coastal Engineer Staff
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE:
CDP 19-073
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 19-073
JOB ADDRESS: 33650 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Eric Rochin
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 25205 Maibu Road
APPLICANT PHONE #: (424) 235-2924
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, with 2nd unit, Pool, sports court cabana Malibu, CA 90265
The project is feasible and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

The project CANNOT proceed through the planning process until coastal engineering feasibility is determined. Depending upon the nature of the project, this may require submittal of coastal engineering reports and/or wave run-up studies which evaluate the coastal environment setting, processes, and hazards.

SIGNATURE DATE
Determination of Coastal Engineering feasibility is not approval of building and/or grading plans.

Plans and/or reports must be submitted for Building Department approval, and may require approval of both the City Geotechnical Engineer, and City Coastal Engineer. Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed at the time of building and/or grading plans are submitted for review. Geotechnical reports may also be required.

City Coastal Engineering Staff may be contacted on Tuesday and Thursday between 8:00 am and 1:00 am at the City Hall Public counter or by HPDLOLQJ/'R\HO#FLW\RIPDOLEXRUJRU 03KLSSV#PDOLEXFLW\RUJ
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Division and/or Applicant
FROM: Coastal Engineering Reviewer
Rev 120910
5-18-2022
REF: Land Phases, Inc. correspondence dated 5-18-2022. The proposed bluff top development has been reviewed with respect to the effect of sea level rise on accelerated bluff retreat rates, and 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. 228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: Malibu Planning Commission June 6, 2022 CDP Application Comments Attachments: Malibu Comment Letter 33650 PCH (Haagan) PC 6.6.2022.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
For the record
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310‐456‐2489 Ext. 346
From: Gonzalez, Denise@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc: Christensen, Deanna@Coastal <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Planning Commission June 6, 2022 CDP Application Comments Hi Adam & Richard –
We reviewed the staff reports for the CDPs that will be considered by the Planning Commission today, Monday, June 6.

We would like to offer the following comments regarding one of the projects. Please see the letter attached.

Sincerely,
Denise Gonzalez
Denise Gonzalez
Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
South Central Coast District
89 South California Street, Suite 200
Ventura, CA 93001
[email protected] | (805) 585‐1800
ATTACHMENT 5
239
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST., SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001
(805) 585-1800
June 6, 2022
Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 19-073 and Demolition Permit No. 22-008 for 33650 Pacific Coast Highway.

Dear Mr. Pisarkiewicz:

Commission staff has reviewed the staff report for the subject permit application scheduled to be considered by the City of Malibu Planning Commission on June 6, 2022, and we have several comments. The subject permit application includes the construction of a new 6,567 square foot, one-story, 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, onsite wastewater treatment system and grading at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway. The project also includes demolishing an unpermitted driveway, fencing, and landscaping.

Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy 4.27 and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 10.4(D) require that new development on a blufftop be set back from the bluff edge at a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure, and in no case be less than 100 feet. A reduced setback of no less than 50 feet may be implemented only if one of the bluff stability criteria set forth in Section 10.4(D)(1) or (2) can be met with a setback that is less than 100 feet but no less than 50 feet.

In the case of the subject CDP, the City’s staff report states that the proposed development will provide a 50 foot bluff setback. However, the staff report findings do not include any details to demonstrate that the site meets the requirements of LIP Section 10.4 for reducing the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet based on site-specific evidence regarding the factor of safety and bluff retreat rate. Because the findings do not address the site specific evidence, it is not clear if the project is consistent with the requirements of LUP Policy 4.27 and LIP Section 10.4. To ensure consistency with the relevant policies and provisions of the LCP, we recommend that the City include a more detailed discussion of the site-specific analysis required by the LCP for a reduction in the 100 foot bluff setback standard in the subject staff report findings. Our comment letter of May 23, 2019, regarding site-specific analysis required by the LCP for any reductions in the 100 foot bluff setback standard in the staff report findings for blufftop projects is also attached.
240
2 Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Denise Gonzalez
Coastal Program Analyst
cc: Richard Mollica, Planning Director, City of Malibu
241
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, ( ;OI'£'nwr

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST .. SUITE 200
VENTURA. CA 93001
(805) 585-1 800
May 23, 2019
Bonnie Blue, Planning Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Dear Ms. Blue:

On May 2, 2019 our office received a Notice of Final Local Action for the appealable Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-101 to authorize the demolition of an existing single family residence, and the construction of a new 6,010 sq. ft. single family residence with an 1,515 sq. ft. basement and garage, 436 sq. ft. detached office, 436 sq. ft. detached art studio, pool, spa, and new onsite wastewater treatment system at 28848 Cliffside Drive. Commission staff has reviewed the City's staff report and the findings and conditions of approval ofthe subject coastal development permit and would like to express the following concerns regarding the City's analysis related to bluff setbacks. Although the appeal period for this permit has ended and a Commission appeal was not filed, the City's staff report findings in this case raise issues that we would like to bring to your attention so they can be addressed in future permits.

Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy 4.27 and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 10.4(0) require that new development on a blufftop be set back from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 1 00-year economic life of the structure, and in no case be less than 100 feet. A reduced setback of no less than 50 feet may be implemented only if one of the bluff stability criteria set forth in Section 1 0.4(D)(l) or (2) can be met with a setback that is less than 100 feet but no less than 50 feet.

In the case of the subject CDP, the City's staff report states that the proposed development will provide a 50 foot bluff setback and will not be subject to bluff retreat over the 100 year life of the development. However, the staff report findings do not include any details to demonstrate that the site meets the requirements of LIP Section 10.4 for reducing the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet based on site-specific evidence regarding the factor of safety and bluff retreat rate.

Because the findings do not address the site specific evidence, it is not clear if the project is consistent with the requirements of LUP Policy 4.27 and LIP Section 1 0.4. To ensure consistency with the relevant policies and provisions of the LCP, we recommend that the City include a more detailed discussion of the site-specific analysis required by the LCP for any reductions in the 100 foot bluff setback standard in the staff report findings for blufftop projects.

We appreciate the City's consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,
~~/-I,....___
Steve Hudson
District Director
242
1 Planning Commission
From: Tracy Lovric <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Elena Eger
Subject: Item 5A June 6 Planning Commission Agenda
Attachments: 2022-06-06 MRCA-Plng Comm. re CDP 33650 PCH.doc; Malibu LCP Map.docx Attached please find the MRCA’s public comment re item 5A for the June 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you.

Tracy Lovric
Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority
213.605.2123
https://mrca.ca.gov/coastal-access/
243

MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
King Gillette Ranch
26800 Mulholland Highway
Calabasas, California 91302
Phone (818) 878-0866 Fax (818) 878-0508
A local public agency exercising joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation & Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code.

Via email to [email protected]
June 6, 2022
Patricia Salazar
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
June 6, 2022, Item 5A Planning Commission Agenda
Coastal Development Permit
33650 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Dear Planning Commissioners,
This letter constitutes the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority’s (MRCA) public comment on Item 5A on the June 6, 2022, agenda that is your staff’s recommendation for approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application No. 19-073 and Demolition Permit 22-008 at 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu. Your staff’s recommendation, however, is based on incorrect facts and without requiring a lateral public access easement over this parcel, you should not find that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act regarding public coastal access.

In its report, your staff relies on its statement that, “adequate public access exists nearby” 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. . .” Your staff uses these statements to support its recommendation to you to find that the proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Act.

But your staff’s report is based on erroneous facts. First, contrary to your staff’s report, there is no existing public access at El Sol County Beach. And public access to this 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 Nicolas County Beach and the proposed development. Last, your own LCP map shows that lateral easements were required along this stretch of beach for other past developments (see attached). Yet, you are not imposing dedication of a lateral easement on this proposed development. Lateral easements allow the public to move across the beach 244
Patricia Salazar
June 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

as well as enjoy the coast by permitting use of the dry sandy beach for recreational uses.

To find that the proposed coastal development is consistent with the Coastal Act, the MRCA requests that the Planning Commission require that the Project Applicant dedicate to the public a lateral easement as a condition of the approval of the new development. Only then will this proposed development be consistent with the Coastal Act with respect to public access to the coast.

You may contact me via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elena Eger
Coastal Projects Special Counsel
Attachment: Malibu LCP Map
cc: Andrew Willis, California Coastal Commission
Tina Segura, California Coastal Commission
245
Malibu LCP Map
246
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 6, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. for the project identified below which will be held via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 pursuant to AB 361 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s Safer at Home Order.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-073, DEMOLITION PERMIT NO. 22-008, AND CODE VIOLATION NO. 22-025 - An application for the construction of a 6,567 square foot, one-story, single-family residence with a 397 square foot basement, 1,375 detached garage, a 720 square foot detached second unit, a tennis court and 412 square foot tennis cabana, retaining walls, pool, spa, and new onsite wastewater treatment system; including a demolition permit to demolish an unpermitted driveway, chain-link gates and fences, removal of non-native vegetation and trees blocking public views of the ocean from Pacific Coast Highway LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 33650 Pacific Coast Hwy / 4473-021-006 / Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) APPLICANT / OWNER(S): Wildman Design Group / 33650 Pacific Coast Highway LLC APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: October 10, 2019
CASE PLANNER: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner, [email protected] (203) 962-9078
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project, typically 10 days before the hearing in the Agenda Center:
http://www.malibucity.org/agendacenter. Related documents are available for review at City Hall or by contacting the Case Planner. You will have an opportunity to testify at the public hearing; written comments which shall be considered public record, may be submitted any time prior to the beginning of the public hearing. If the City’s action is challenged in court, testimony may be limited to issues raised before or at the public hearing. To view or sign up to speak during the meeting, visit www.malibucity.org/virtualmeeting.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.

RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: May 26, 2022
ATTACHMENT 6
247

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.

Exhibit E
248
Resolution No 22-46

Page 2 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 Plam~ing 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 249
Resolution No 22-46

Page 3 of 20 ends

4. 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 ofthe 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.
250
Resolution No 22-46

Page 4 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 1 00-year bluffretreat 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. 251
Resolution No 22-46

Page 5 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 ofthis 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 oceanlbeach from PCI-I.
252
Resolution No 22-46

Page 6 of 20 ends

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be insubstantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped July 5, 2022. In the event the project plans conflict with any conditions of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.1 8.2, 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. Prior to Building Safety plan check, the applicant is required to provide structural plans to the Planning Department demonstrating that all structural components related to the deck will be sited on slopes flatter than 3 to 1.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.
253
Resolution No 22-46

Page 7 of 20 ends

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

Cultural Resources

14. 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. Thereafler, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Lighting

16. 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.

17. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

18. 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.

19. 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. 254
Resolution No 22-46

Page 8 of 20 ends

20. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

21. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes afler activation.

22. 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

23. 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 ofPCH adjacent to the project site.
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

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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. The project developer shall utilize licensed subcontractors and ensure that all asbestos containing 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.
255
Resolution No 22-46

Page 9 of 20 ends

29. 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.

30. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final inspection by the Building Safety Division.
construction/Framing

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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.
256
Resolution No 22-46
Page lOof2O

38. 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.

Colors and Materials

39. 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.

40. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforrns 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

41. 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.

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

43. 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.

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

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

46. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.
257
Resolution No 22-46

Page 1 ends

47. 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

48. A digital drawing (Aut0CAD) 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.

49. 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.

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

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

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

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

53. 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 Erosion Controls Scheduling
Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Fencing
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
258
Resolution No 22-46

Page 12 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.

54. 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 predeveloprnent 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 ofthe 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.

55. 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 proj ect:
a. Public Works Department;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
259
Resolution No 22-46

Page 13 ends

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

56. 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.”

57. 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.

58. 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 ofthe pre-development and post-development drainage ofthe site. 260
Resolution No 22-46

Page 14 ends

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.

59. 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 complet~d 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.

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

61. 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.

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

Floodplain Management

63. 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.

64. Proposed improvements are located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SF1-IA). 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 ofthe 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, 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.

65. 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 261
Resolution No 22-46

Page 15 ends

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

66. 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.

67. 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 (0 WTS)

68. 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.

69. Prior to final Environmental I-Iealth approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements ofthe MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features 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).

70. A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environn~ental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

71. 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.

72. 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 262
Resolution No 22-46

Page 16 ends

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 ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates 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.

73. 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

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 263
Resolution No 22-46

Page 17 ends

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.

74. 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.”

75. 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.

76. 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.

77. 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 (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) ifthe 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.

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

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

80. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner ofthe subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion ofthe City ofMalibu 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.
264
Resolution No 22-46

Page 18 ends

81. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder ofthe fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

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

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

84. 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

85. 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.

86. 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

87. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

88. Prior to 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.

89. 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.

90. 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 265
Resolution No 22-46

Page 19 ends

coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion ofthe 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.

91. 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

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

93. 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

94. 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 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.

95. 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 ofthe 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.

96. 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. 266
Resolution No 22-46

Page 20 of 20 ends

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July 2022.

Kraig Hill, Planning C mission Chair
ATTEST:
~11
WA.’ ~ _~ .~ ~
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval 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 by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

Any actioii 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 I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 22-46 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 1 8th day of July 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: 3 Commissioners: Jennings, Wetton,
Smith
NOES: 2 Commissioners: Mazza, Hill
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
~
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
267

REPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC STUDY

PROPOSED ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS)
33650 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR CHARALS HAAGAN
MARCH 26, 2020 Project No.: LP1431
This file is an electronic/digital copy of an engineering geologic document prepared by Land Phases, Inc. (LP). The use of this electronic file shall be performed only by LP’s client, their authorized agent(s), qualified professionals whose possession of this electronic copy is permitted by law, and/or by permission granted by LP.

ELECTRONIC COPY
THE ALTERATION OF ANY PORTION OF THIS ELECTRONIC COPY (i.e. report text, geologic data, diagrams, figures, maps, etc.) BY ANY PERSON, ENTITY, OR

FIRM OTHER THAN LP IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND SHALL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.

A PRINTED OR “HARD COPY” VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE

CONSIDERED OFFICIAL AND/OR ACCURATE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A “WET” SIGNATURE AND STAMP OF THE LICENSED LP PROFESSIONAL CONTAINED THEREIN.

THIS FILE IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC COPY UNLESS THIS NOTE AND

THE SIGNATURE AND STAMP OF THE LICENSED LP PROFESSIONAL ARE CONTAINED HEREIN.

Exhibit F
268
March 26, 2020 Project No.: LP1431
Charals Haagan
P.O. Box 66369
Culver City, CA 90066
SUBJECT: REPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC STUDY, PROPOSED ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS), 33650 PACIFIC COAST

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our professional engineering geologic services. It is strongly recommended that you read this report from cover to cover in order to understand the assumptions and limitations of this study and to avoid taking a finding or recommendation out-of-context. Please avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretation of this report by calling the undersigned with any questions you may have.

Respectfully Submitted,
LAND PHASES, INC.

Jake W. Holt
PG 7404, CEG 2282, CHG 816 exp. 11-30-20
Principal Engineering Geologist and Hydrogeologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email)
(3) Eric Rochin (plus 1 pdf copy on CD for City submittal) (1) CalWest Geotechnical (via email)
(1) EPD Consultants, Inc. (via email)

269
March 26, 2020 Page 3
Project No.: LP1431

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................... 6 General Remarks and Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 6 Proposed OWTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Location ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Geomorphology ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Existing Structures.................................................................................................................................................... 8 Site Drainage .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Site Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................................................................... 9 General ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Subject Property ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Nearby Properties ................................................................................................................................................... 10 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Regional Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Regional Geologic Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 10 Site Geology .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Geologic Units ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Artificial Fill (af) .................................................................................................................... 11 Soil (Qs) .................................................................................................................................. 11 Talus (Qtls) ............................................................................................................................. 11 Beach Deposits (Qbs) ............................................................................................................. 11 Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt) ........................................................................................ 12 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) ............................................................................................. 12 Landslide Debris (Qls) ............................................................................................................ 12 Bedrock (Ttus, Ttl, and Ti) ..................................................................................................... 12 Geologic Structure ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Bedding ................................................................................................................................... 13 Joints ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Shears ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Folds ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Faults ...................................................................................................................................... 14 HYDROGEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Groundwater Defined ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Observed Site Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................................................... 17 Historic Site Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................. 17 Highest Anticipated Site Groundwater Conditions ....................................................................................... 17 270
March 26, 2020 Page 4
Project No.: LP1431
Percolation Testing for OWTS Design .............................................................................................................. 17 Anticipated Path of Sewage Effluent ................................................................................................................. 18 Vertical Separation to Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 18 SITE/SLOPE STABILITY ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Past Slope Performance (Landslides and Rain Damage) ............................................................................ 18 Quantitative Surficial and Gross Stability ........................................................................................................ 18 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 General Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Final Project Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 19 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) ........................................................................ 19 Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 20 Temporary Excavations and Shoring ............................................................................................................... 20 Site Observations and Testing ............................................................................................................................. 20 Responsibilities and Site Control ........................................................................................................................ 21 Plan Review .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 ASSUMPTIONS and LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 22 General ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Report Intent ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 Report Use ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Accuracy of Topographic Base Map(s) ............................................................................................................. 23 Locations of Exploratory Excavations .............................................................................................................. 23 Variation in Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................... 23 Site Risks .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Additional Work ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Report Expiration ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Warrantee ................................................................................................................................................................. 25 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

ATTACHMENTS
Figures:

Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map by Dibblee (1990)
Figure 4 – Fault Map, portion of Figure 3A from FER-229 (1994) Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 6 – City of Malibu Ground Response Map by Fugro Consultants, Inc. 271
March 26, 2020 Page 5
Project No.: LP1431
Appendices:

Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Excavations
-Geologic Logs of Borings # 1-10
-Geologic Logs of Test Pits # 1-7
Map Pocket:

Plate 1 – Geologic Map (scale: 1” equals 20’)
Plate 2 – Geologic Sections A-A’, B-B’ (scale: 1” equals 20’)

272
March 26, 2020 Page 6
Project No.: LP1431

Our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property was performed in conjunction with a percolation study performed by EPD Consultants, Inc. To clarify, LP is the Project Engineering Geologist and EPD Consultants is the Project OWTS Engineer with respect to the proposed OWTS.

Scope of Work
Our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property was conducted from February 27, 2020 to March 26, 2020 and included the following tasks:
 Review of the current site development plans which were provided to our office.  Additional research and review of available City files and archives for geologic data pertinent to the subject property and adjacent area.
 Additional review of selected aerial photographs, published engineering geologic references, and available published and unpublished engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering reports. The references cited or utilized as part of this study are listed in the REFERENCES section of this report.
 Excavation and logging of an additional 2 percolation test borings (Borings # 9 and 10) within the subject property. The borings were excavated with a track-mounted drill-rig.

When completed with our examination and logging of the aforementioned exploratory excavations, the excavations gravel-packed to grade in order to prevent caving during percolation testing. The geologic logs of the boring excavations are presented in Appendix A of this report.
 Geologic field mapping of the surficial deposits and/or outcrops located within and adjacent to the subject property.
 Preparation of a site-specific Geologic Map (scale: 1” equals 20’) which utilizes the provided topographic survey as a base. The Geologic Map illustrates the proposed project, the locations of LP’s exploratory excavations, the locations of the geologic cross-sections 273
March 26, 2020 Page 7
Project No.: LP1431
constructed as part of this study, and the interpreted geologic conditions of the site based on the findings of our engineering geologic study. The Geologic Map is attached to this report as Plate 1.
 Preparation of a revised Geologic Section B-B’ (scale: 1” equals 20’) which illustrates the topographic and interpreted geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of a selected portion of the subject property based on the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study.

The location and orientation of the geologic section is typically intended to illustrate the interpreted geologic and hydrogeologic conditions underlying the worst-case or steepest slope of the area of the proposed seepage pits. Geologic Section B-B’ is attached to this report as Plate 2.
 Analysis of the geologic and hydrogeologic data obtained from the aforementioned tasks.  Preparation of this supplemental report that presents our engineering geologic findings, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to the subject property and proposed project.
 All aspects of this study were performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a State of California Certified Engineering Geologist.

Site Geomorphology
Locally, the subject property is described as a partially graded lot which is situated on gentle sloping alluvial (non-marine) terrace surface. The alluvial terrace surface is locally incised by southerly-trending drainage courses. One such drainage course boarders the eastern margin of the 274
March 26, 2020 Page 8
Project No.: LP1431
subject property. In addition, a steep south-facing slope (i.e. a coastal bluff) and sandy beach are present within the southern portion of the site. Based on our review of the referenced aerial photographs and consultation with the property owner, past grading within the northern half (approx.) of the subject property has included minor cutting and filling performed in association with the construction of the access paths which traverse the site and in association with site landscaping activities. In addition, a significant amount of grading has been performed within the southern portion of the site in order to construct an amphitheater-shaped pad area and associated access path. Based on our review of the referenced aerial photographs, the grading within the southern portion of the site took place sometime between 1928 and 1952 and is reported to have been performed in order to provide a filming location for a movie. Based on our site observations and mapping, it appears that this grading consisted primarily of cutting but also appears to have involved the placement or casting of fill materials over the face of the bluff. Furthermore, this grading altered/removed a portion of the natural coastal bluff which is clearly visible across the site in the referenced 1928 photographs. The interpreted location of the top of the pre-existing coastal bluff (as seen in the 1928 photographs) is illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). In addition, LP has also illustrated our interpretation of the pre-grading topography of the bluff on the attached Geologic Sections A-A’ and B-B’ (Plate 2). It should be noted that the location of the 1928 top of bluff is more restrictive (i.e. more landward) than the existing “artificial” top of bluff which is located along the southern margin of the lower pad area of the site. Also consistent with the guidelines of the City of Malibu LCP, LP has projected the top of the coastal bluff across the natural canyon area of the site to join with the topographic top of bluff which is present within the adjacent property to the east.

Total physical relief within the subject property is on the order of 130 feet. Slope gradients within the site vary from nearly horizontal in the project areas of the site to near vertical on localized portions of the coastal bluff. The existing topographic conditions of the subject property are presented on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1) which utilizes the provided topographic survey as a base.

Existing Structures
Concrete pathways, wood walls, and wood stairways are present within the southern portion of the subject property. The wood walls which boarder the concrete pathways and various “sitting areas” range in height from 1 to 3 feet. However, wooden retaining walls up to 4 feet high are present on portions of the site and appear to have been constructed in order to help mitigate local areas of surficial instability. The locations of the existing structures are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). However, it should be noted that some of the aforementioned wood walls shown on the attached geologic map were destroyed by the recent Woolsey Fire. At the time of our engineering geologic study the existing concrete pathway appeared to be in good condition with no visible signs of excessive settlement or distress. However, it should be noted that detailed evaluation of the condition and/or structural performance of the existing concrete pathway is beyond the scope of this study.

Site Drainage
Site drainage is primarily by sheet flow runoff which is directed toward the south via the existing contours. However, a somewhat extensive area drainage system is also present with the site which 275
March 26, 2020 Page 9
Project No.: LP1431
includes area drain inlets and both subsurface and surface piping which transfers collected runoff to the beach area of the site. In addition, hydraugers (horizontal drains) were observed at the toe of the bluff. Also, the head of what appears to be a dewatering well was also observed within the southern portion of the site. It is uncertain as to when these dewatering devices were installed, and by who, as a permit or report documenting their installation could not be located by LP in the City records during the course of this study.

Site Vegetation
Vegetation on the subject property consists of a mix of domestic and natural shrubs, trees, and grasses. However, much of the site vegetation burned during the recent Woolsey Fire.

The subject property was recently studied by LP (2019, 2019a, 2020) and CalWest Geotechnical (CWG, 2019). Specifically, LP and CWG performed an engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering study of the subject property with respect to the currently proposed custom singlefamily residential development at the site. This study included, in part, the excavation, logging, and sampling of 8 borings and 7 test pits. A copy of the geologic logs of the aforementioned exploratory excavations is included in Appendix A of this report. The geologic information obtained from our prior study has been incorporated into our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property and is illustrated, as appropriate, on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). Based on the findings of our study, LP and CWG concluded that the site was suitable for the previously proposed project provided the presented recommendations were implemented during 276
March 26, 2020 Page 10
Project No.: LP1431
design and construction. The detailed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this study are presented in the referenced reports which are on file at the City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety.

A brief summary of the pertinent geologic data presented by the geologic publications and regional geologic maps reviewed as part of this study is as follows:

Regional mapping of the Malibu Coast Fault by Treiman and the California Division of Mines and Geology (1994; now referred to as the California Geological Survey – CGS) in the area of the 277
March 26, 2020 Page 11
Project No.: LP1431
subject property is generally consistent with the fault mapping performed by Dibblee (see Figure 4).

Site Geology
The geologic conditions (i.e. earth materials and structure) beneath the subject property have been interpreted and characterized based upon our review of published and unpublished geologic references, review of available engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering reports, our observations of isolated exposures available during surface mapping of the site and adjacent area, and the findings of our subsurface exploration. It should be noted that our interpretations of the geologic conditions of the subject property involve projections of data and require that geologic conditions remain reasonably constant between points of observation and/or exposure.

Talus (Qtls)
Natural talus deposits are present at the toe of the south-facing bluff slope of the subject property.

Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the talus is described as an unorganized accumulation of sand, silt, and gravel.

Beach Deposits (Qbs)
Natural beach deposits underlie the southern portion of the subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the beach deposits consist of cohesionless sand which is pale yellowish brown to grayish orange, medium-grained, dry to wet with depth, and is medium dense. 278
March 26, 2020 Page 12
Project No.: LP1431
Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt)
Natural non-marine terrace deposits underlie the subject property. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the non-marine terrace deposits are described as interbedded mixtures of sand, silty, clay, and gravel which is moderate brown to dark reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, and dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to subrounded, pebble- to cobblesize clasts of sandstone, granite, quartzite, and volcanics.

Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm)
Natural marine terrace deposits underlie the subject property, beneath the non-marine terrace deposits. Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the marine terrace deposits are described as interlayered mixtures of sand and gravel which is dark yellowish orange and moderate brown, slightly moist to wet, and is dense. The gravel component consists of subangular to rounded, pebble- to boulder-size clasts of sandstone, granite, quartzite, and volcanics. While the marine terrace deposits are dense, they are composed of non-cohesive materials and are subject to caving.

The mapped limits of landslide debris within the subject property were determined by our detailed geologic field mapping of the area and our analysis of the referenced aerial photographs. The mapped limits of landslide debris are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1). The subsurface geometry of the mapped landslide area was interpreted by our geologic mapping and analysis of the prepared geologic sections. The interpreted subsurface geometry of mapped landslide area is illustrated on the attached Geologic Sections A-A’ and B-B’ (Plate 2).

Bedrock (Ttus, Ttl, and Ti)
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, bedrock underlying the subject property consists primarily of interbedded sandstone and siltstone mapped as part of the Upper Topanga Formation (Ttus) and Lower Topanga Formation (Ttl) of Miocene age. However, intrusive igneous bedrock (Ti) was also observed within the site which is most likely related to the Conejo Volcanics of Miocene age.

The sandstone and siltstone bedrock of the Upper Topanga Formation is exposed within the southern portion of the site. The sandstone is grayish orange to yellowish gray, thin to thickly bedded, fine- to very coarse-grained, somewhat friable to non-friable, moderately hard to hard, 279
March 26, 2020 Page 13
Project No.: LP1431
slightly to moderately fractured, and is slightly to moderately weathered. The siltstone is medium gray to dark gray, thinly bedded, somewhat friable, moderately hard, moderately fractured, and is slightly to moderately weathered.

Geologic Structure
The earth materials present within the subject property are common to this area of Malibu and their occurrence is generally consistent with regional trends.

Joints
A joint plane is the surface of a fracture or parting at which no appreciable movement has occurred parallel to the fracture, and only slight movement has occurred normal to the fracture. Joint surfaces can be systematic with subparallel orientations and regular spacing or non-systematic which irregular orientations, shape, and spacing. A joint set is a group of joint surfaces which are more or less parallel. A joint system is two or more joint sets which are subparallel to each other and intersect. Joints may be unfilled; that is, the fracture may be open and void of mineral infilling 280
March 26, 2020 Page 14
Project No.: LP1431
or an open joint surface may be occupied with some form of mineral infilling. Joints can occur in bedrock as well as in unlithified sedimentary deposits. The development of joint surfaces in bedrock is most commonly in response to burial, unburial, application of regional deformational forces, application of local deformational forces, and the cessation of regional or local deformational forces.

Significant joint planes, sets, or systems were not identified within the underlying earth materials during our engineering geologic study of the subject property.

Shears
Shear is defined as a ductile deformation resulting from stresses that cause contiguous parts of a body, or material, to slide relative to each other in a direction parallel to their contact. A shear plane is defined as the surface or zone along which differential movement, by shear, has taken place. It should be noted that a shear plane is also synonymous with the definition of a fault.

However, the term shear plane or shear zone is used when movement is interpreted to be in the micro-sense as compared to a macro-sense of displacement associated with a fault or fault zone.

The development of a shear plane or shear zone in subsurface materials is most commonly related to regional or local faulting and folding. Simply, the subsurface stresses and pressures associated with faulting and folding can deform the adjacent bedrock or portions thereof. The deformation and/or movement at the shear surface often results in the presence of a zone of gouge or breccia typically consisting of clay, silt, or pulverized material derived from the surrounding parent material. Shear planes can develop within bedrock along pre-existing parting surfaces such as bedding, foliation, or joints planes but can also develop between parting planes, within massive bedrock, and/or in orientations which cross-cut the pre-existing bedrock structures. Shear planes can also develop during mass slope movements such as landslide. In instances where the basal failure surface of a landslide (i.e. landslide plane) did not fail along a pre-existing shear surface, the pressures and stresses at the basal surface of a slope failure can form a shear plane by the grinding of subsurface materials as the landslide develops followed by decomposition of the materials at the shear surface aided by the interaction between the sheared materials and groundwater.

Significant or mapable shear planes were not identified within the underlying earth materials during our engineering geologic study of the subject property.

Folds
Analysis of structural geologic data obtained during our engineering geologic study indicates that a significant fold feature is not present within the subsurface of the subject property.

Faults
A fault is a fracture, or zone of closely related fractures, along which there has been significant relative displacement of the materials, on opposite sides of the fault, in a direction parallel to the fracture. Sudden movement along a fault releases energy in the form of seismic waves and is commonly known as an earthquake. A fault can be present as a single plane of fracture or shear, or a broad zone of deformation or distributed tectonic movement ranging in width from a few feet 281
March 26, 2020 Page 15
Project No.: LP1431
to several miles. A fault trace is the line formed by the intersection of a fault with the Earth’s surface.

The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act of 1972, with subsequent amendments and revisions (i.e. name revision in 1993 to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act), prohibits locating most structures planned for human occupancy across known active faults. This state law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the State Geologist designates “Earthquake Fault Zones”, previously known as “Special Studies Zones”, around faults that are known to be sufficiently active and well-defined. A sufficiently active fault is defined as a fault that has exhibited surface displacement, along one or more of its segments or branches, within the Holocene epoch of geologic time (i.e. the last 11,700 years). A well-defined fault is defined as a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained Geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. Most new development projects located within designated Earthquake Fault Zones are required to demonstrate the absence of active faults underneath building areas.

In an unconfined subsurface condition, the upper surface of the saturated zone is referred to as the potentiometric surface. The potentiometric surface is commonly referred to as the “groundwater level” or “groundwater table” and is the elevation in the subsurface at which the hydraulic pressure of the subsurface water is equal to atmospheric pressure. This is also the level or elevation at which water will be observed in a well, or exploratory excavation, which penetrates into the saturated zone. In a confined subsurface condition, the saturated zone is overlain by a confining bed and the upper surface of the saturated zone is referred to as the piezometric surface. The piezometric surface usually possesses a hydraulic pressure which is greater than atmospheric 283
March 26, 2020 Page 17
Project No.: LP1431
pressure and is the level or elevation at which water will be observed in a well, or subsurface excavation, which penetrates through the confining bed into the saturated zone.

Factors controlling the presence, elevation, and movement of groundwater include regional climatic conditions, geomorphology, distance to rivers, lakes, and oceans, geologic structure, hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface materials, dynamic characteristics of the water, strength of the gravitational field, irrigation, and land use. Thus, the presence, elevation, and movement of groundwater can vary significantly over short distances and can also fluctuate. Therefore, groundwater levels at the time of construction and during the life of the structures may vary from the observations or conditions encountered at the time of the field exploration.

Historic Site Groundwater Conditions
Evidence of a historically higher groundwater level (i.e. at an elevation higher than what was observed and previously discussed) was not observed by LP. The referenced Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report for the Triunfo Pass Quadrangle indicates the presence of a historically high groundwater level at a depth of 5 feet below existing grade in the area of the subject property (DOC CDMG; now referred to as the California Geological Survey - CGS, 2002).

Percolation Testing for OWTS Design
It is our understanding that it is currently planned to construct the seepage pit(s) of the proposed OWTS in the area of Borings # 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and/or 10. Percolation testing was performed by 284
March 26, 2020 Page 18
Project No.: LP1431
utilizing the aforementioned borings by the Project OWTS Engineer. The purpose of the percolation testing was to determine the feasibility for the design and use of seepage pits as a method of subsurface wastewater disposal. Based on the percolation testing, it is our understanding that the underlying terrace deposits provides adequate absorption of effluent as required by the local regulatory agency for the design and use of a seepage pit-type OWTS; however, more than one seepage pit may be required. The detailed percolation test report shall be provided by the Project OWTS Engineer under a separate cover.

Anticipated Path of Sewage Effluent
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, the anticipated paths of future effluent released from the seepage pit(s) are vertically downward, and within 30 degrees from vertical, through the natural terrace deposits to the groundwater level interface. The anticipated path of effluent and estimated cone of saturation is illustrated on the attached Geologic Section B-B’ (Plate 2). Based upon the findings of our supplemental engineering geologic study of the subject property, mounding on a confining bed or boundary, or daylighting of sewage effluent is not anticipated to occur. As shown on the attached Geologic Map, the area of the proposed seepage pits is located approximately 300 feet to the north of the toe of the bluff. Thus, LP considers the chance of daylighting of untreated wastewater system effluent to be remote.

SITE/SLOPE STABILITY
Past Slope Performance (Landslides and Rain Damage)
Based on the findings of our engineering geologic studies of the subject property, the area of the proposed seepage pit(s) is free from any recent rain-related damage such as landslides or mudflows. However, as stated in the Site Geology section of this report, landslide debris underlies the southern portion of the subject property. In addition, a surficial failure has been mapped to the south of the proposed residence and swimming pool. The mapped limits of the surficial failure and landsliding are illustrated on the attached Geologic Map (Plate 1).

The proposed seepage pit(s) should be sealed in the upper portion to avoid percolation into the surficial materials. Based on the topographic and geologic conditions in the area of the proposed seepage pit(s), a capping depth of ten (10) feet below existing grade (as measured on the downhill side of the pit) is currently recommended. It shall be noted that the currently recommended capping depth shall be considered a minimum based on the geologic data obtained to date and actual site conditions observed during construction may warrant a greater capping depth.

The bottom of any seepage pit should be a minimum of ten (10) feet above the underlying groundwater level.
286
March 26, 2020 Page 20
Project No.: LP1431
It is recommended that seepage pit excavations be observed by the Project Engineering Geologist and City Inspector to verify that the encountered conditions are as anticipated and that proper construction and sealing practices have been followed. If desired or required by the City Inspector, the Project Engineering Geologist shall submit a final observation notice or report stating that the seepage pit(s) has been completed in compliance with our recommendations.

Based on the findings of our engineering geologic study, it is anticipated that the underlying groundwater level will be encountered in a foundation excavation if the excavation is planned for a depth near or greater than the groundwater level illustrated on the provided geologic section(s).

Once encountered, the presence of groundwater may hinder the construction of the foundation excavations. If water is encountered in a foundation excavation, it shall be pumped from the excavation prior to the placement of concrete or the water column can be displaced/removed from the excavation by pumping concrete into the excavation from the bottom up through a tremie pipe which has been lowered to the bottom of the foundation excavation. In addition, the strength of concrete should be increased as specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Project Civil/Structural Engineer.

If the installation of shoring is required in order to provide stability for any temporary excavations, the shoring system(s) shall be designed by a qualified Civil/Structural Engineer as specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

Site Observations and Testing
Prior to the start of site preparation and/or construction, we recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held with the owner or developer, contractor, project engineers, City/County Inspector, 287
March 26, 2020 Page 21
Project No.: LP1431
and LP to discuss the project. In addition, we recommend that LP be retained to perform the following tasks prior to and/or during construction.
 Review the OWTS plans to verify that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. If LP is not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.  Observe the seepage pit excavations prior to the placement of liners, perforated pipe, gravel, cap, and fill cover.
 All fill which is placed for engineering purposes shall be observed and tested by the Project Geotechnical Engineer to confirm proper site preparation, suitability of removal excavations, scarification, selection of suitable fill materials, and placement and compaction of fill.

Should any site observation reveal any unforeseen geologic or geotechnical hazard, the Project Engineering Geologist and/or the Project Geotechnical Engineer will recommend treatment.

It should be clearly understood and acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the client, property owner, developer, and/or their authorized agent(s) to insure that the engineering geologic information and recommendations provided by LP in association with the project are properly and thoroughly conveyed to the project architect(s), engineer(s), and/or contractor(s) so that they may be properly incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor(s) carries out such recommendations in the field. LP is not and will not be responsible for the acts, errors, or omissions of contractors or other parties associated with the project and the subject site.
288
March 26, 2020 Page 22
Project No.: LP1431
Plan Review
This engineering geologic study was performed and this report was prepared on the basis of the furnished project plans and/or information. Formal plans should be reviewed by LP. Should the plans differ substantially from the provided plans or information, additional engineering geologic exploration and analysis may be required.

Report Intent
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the described project.

Implementation of the advice presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations sections of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with the proposed project and should not be construed to imply total performance of the project. As previously stated, this report is issued with the understanding that it is the sole responsibility of the client, or their authorized agent(s), to insure that the engineering geologic information and recommendations provided in this report are conveyed to the project architect, engineers, and contractors so that they may be properly incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor carries out such recommendations in the field.

Report Use
LP has prepared this report concerning the subject property for the exclusive use of the client and their authorized agents and shall not be considered transferable. Prior to use by others, the subject site and this report must be reviewed by our office. Following review, additional work may be required to update and/or supplement this report. In addition, this report should not be utilized in order to form an opinion concerning the geologic/geotechnical conditions of the adjacent or surrounding properties as the findings presented in this report apply only to the explored area of the subject property and may not accurately reflect the underlying conditions of the surrounding area and/or the adjacent properties.
289
March 26, 2020 Page 23
Project No.: LP1431
This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any company or person using this report for bidding or construction purposes shall perform such independent investigation, as they deem necessary, to satisfy themselves as to the surficial and subsurface conditions of the project site.

Accuracy of Topographic Base Map(s)
The engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis of a particular site and subsequent conclusions and recommendations with respect to a proposed project are, in some cases, highly dependent on certain factors which include, but are not limited to, the topographic conditions of the subject site, the adjacent slopes, and/or the locations of property lines. It should be noted that, at the time of this study, it is LP’s assumption that the provided topographic survey, grading plan, and/or site plan (utilized as a base for the geologic map(s) and geologic section(s) constructed as part of this study) accurately present the current topographic conditions of the site, adjacent slopes, and also accurately depict the locations of the existing structures (if present), easements, property lines, proposed structures, and/or proposed grades. It should be clearly understood that LP’s use of the provided topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan does not imply or verify the accuracy of the provided topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan. If at a time subsequent to the completion of this engineering geologic study and report, a revision is made to the site topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this report may be partially invalidated, wholly invalidated, or revised. In addition, supplemental engineering geologic exploration and analysis concerning the subject property and proposed project may also be necessary upon our review of the revised topographic survey, grading plan, or site plan.

Variation in Subsurface Conditions
The engineering geologic conclusions and recommendations contained within this report concerning the proposed project are based on the findings of the tasks described in the Introduction section of this report with the assumption that the subsurface conditions within the site do not deviate appreciably from those observed or encountered during our geologic study. In view of the general geologic conditions described herein, based on our limited observations of the site and/or surrounding area, it should be understood that there is a possibility that different subsurface conditions exist within the site and/or adjacent area. Simply, if observation or exploration was performed at a particular location, it may not be indicative of the portions of the site not observed or explored. The nature and extent of variations in subsurface conditions may not become evident 290
March 26, 2020 Page 24
Project No.: LP1431
until grading or construction. As such, it should be clearly understood that it is the responsibility of the client, their authorized agent(s), or contractor(s) to bring any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during grading or construction to the attention of the Project Engineering Geologist and the Project Geotechnical Engineer of record. In this way, supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum delay to the project.

Site Risks
It should be noted that all building sites are subject to a certain degree of risk that cannot be wholly identified and/or entirely eliminated. Building sites are subject to many detrimental engineering geologic and/or geotechnical hazards including, but not limited to, the effects of water infiltration, erosion, concentrated drainage, settlement, expansive soil movement, expansive bedrock movement, seismic shaking, fault rupture, landsliding, and slope creep. Risks from these hazards can typically be reduced by employing qualified engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professionals. However, even with a thorough subsurface exploration and testing program performed by a qualified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, significant variability of the underlying earth materials may be present within the site. In addition, it is possible that latent (hidden) geologic hazards are present within the site which are concealed by earth materials, vegetation, existing structures, and hardscaping. If such defects are present, they are beyond the evaluation of the Project Engineering Geologist and/or the Project Geotechnical Engineer. In addition, the level of risk and/or the potential for negative site effects from many geologic/geotechnical hazards are highly dependent on the property owner or developer properly developing and maintaining the site, drainage facilities, slopes, and by correcting any deficiencies found during occupancy or use of the property. It should be clearly understood that owner and/or developer is responsible for retaining appropriate and qualified design professionals and contractors in developing the property and for properly maintaining the site and structures.

Hazardous Materials
It should be clearly understood that the identification, sampling, testing, excavation, handling, and/or disposal of any hazardous materials, that may or may not be present within the site, is beyond the scope of this study. In the event such materials are discovered by additional site studies or are encountered during grading or construction, appropriate environmental studies and site mitigation/remediation work may be required. In addition, the client and/or property owner shall acknowledge and/or accept that LP has neither created nor contributed to the creation or existence of any hazardous, radioactive, toxic, irritant, pollutant, substance or constituent, or otherwise dangerous conditions at the site. All site generated non-hazardous and/or hazardous materials, including but not limited to samples, soil/rock cuttings, drilling fluids, decontamination fluids, development fluids, and used disposable protective gear and equipment are the property of the client and/or property owner.

Additional Work
Please be aware that the contract fee for our services to perform an engineering geologic study and prepare this report does not include additional work that may be required in association with the proposed project such as responses to report and/or plan review letters prepared by the building 291
March 26, 2020 Page 25
Project No.: LP1431
department or appropriate regulatory agency in association with you obtaining a grading/building permit, meetings, plan review by this firm, grading/construction observations, and/or any necessary geologic observation of the site with respect to the proposed project. Where additional services are requested or required, you will be billed on an hourly basis for our engineering geologic observation, exploration, consultation, and/or analysis in accordance with LP’s current Fee Schedule.

Report Expiration
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this report are valid as of the date of issuance.

REFERENCES
Site-Specific References (Subject Property, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway):

Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (1989), Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Minor Land Division, Map 21221, Malibu, California, Project No.: 1014.I, October 10, 1989 – REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (1990), Response to County Review, Geotechnical and Engineering Geology, Tentative Map 21221, Malibu, California, Project No.: 1014.I, March 19, 1990 (revised June 13, 1990) -– REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Land Phases, Inc. (2019), Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Custom Single-Family Residential Development, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1431, February 20, 2019.

Land Phases, Inc. (2020), Addendum Engineering Geologic Report # 1, Proposed Custom Single-Family Residential Development, 33650 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:

LP1431, February 3, 2020.

Michael, E. D. (?), Engineering Geology – Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit (Nicolas 2 Beach Parcel), Book 1, Pages 407 et seq. of Patents in Unincorporated Territory, County of Los Angeles, California, Project No.: 24004-S, Unknown Date – REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

R. T. Frankian and Associates (1974), Preliminary Geologic and Soil Investigation, Nicolas 2 Beach Parcel, Malibu, California, Project No.: 24004-S, January 29, 1974 – REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.

Site-Specific References (33608 Pacific Coast Highway):

CalWest Geotechnical (2013), Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, August 2, 2013.

CalWest Geotechnical (2013a), Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report, Response to the City of Malibu Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, Dated October 30, 2013, Proposed Remodeling of the Existing 293
March 26, 2020 Page 27
Project No.: LP1431
Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, November 12, 2013.

CalWest Geotechnical (2014), Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report # 2, Response to the City of Malibu Notice of Required Corrections, Environmental Health Planning Stage (Conformance Review), Dated January 24, 2014, Proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) to the Proposed Residence, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 5439, January 28, 2014.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (1999), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Remedial Project: New Pile-Supported Retaining Wall to Support Existing Driveway (On Landslide-Affected Slope), Remedial Grading, Permit Retaining Wall At Toe of Landslide-Affected Slope, Dewatering Wells, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, October 1, 1999.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (2000a), Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Review Sheet, re: Revisions to Permitted Retaining Wall With Pile Foundations: Additional Row of 7 Piles Behind Existing Row of Piles (already constructed), 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 1541, September 19, 2000.

City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety (2013a), Geotechnical Review Sheet (Planning Stage Approval), re: New Single-Family Residential Development, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, City Log # 3528, December 24, 2013.
294
March 26, 2020 Page 28
Project No.: LP1431
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1990), Geologic Review (Approval) Sheet, re: Walls, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, March 13, 1990.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1990a), Geologic Review (Approval) Sheet, re: Retaining Walls, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, April 3, 1990.

GeoSystems (1998), Stability of Emergency Driveway Repair, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-3, September 24, 1998.

GeoSystems (1998a), Soils and Engineering-Geologic Investigation For Proposed Remedial Retaining Wall, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-3R, September 30, 1998.

GeoSystems (1999a), Additional Recommendation For Pavement, Retaining Wall and Foundation Design, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-6, August 9, 1999.

GeoSystems (1999b), Grading and Retaining Wall Plan Review, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-7, September 1, 1999.

GeoSystems (1999c), Grading Plan Check Corrections, Retaining Wall and Slope Repair Plans, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-8, September 27, 1999.

GeoSystems (2000), Supplemental Retaining Wall Design Recommendations, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-9, February 24, 2000.

GeoSystems (2001), As-Built Report For Soldier Piles and Remedial Slope Repair, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-12, March 8, 2001.

GeoSystems, Inc. (2009), Groundwater Monitoring Well Observations, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GS97-607-14, April 20, 2009.

Grover-Hollingsworth and Associates, Inc. (2012), Visual Geologic Observation, Lot 20, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: GH15644-T, June 15, 2012.

Land Phases, Inc. (2013), Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1079, July 17, 2013.

Land Phases, Inc. (2013a), Addendum Engineering Geologic Report # 1, Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1079, November 7, 2013.
295
March 26, 2020 Page 29
Project No.: LP1431
Land Phases, Inc. (2014), Engineering Geologic Update Letter (Revised Site Plan), Proposed Remodeling of the Existing Residence and the Existing Detached Garage/Guesthouse, New Private Sewage Disposal System and Swimming Pool/Spa, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.:

LP1079, June 2, 2014.

Land Phases, Inc. (2017), Report of Update Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Residential Additions, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: LP1289, January 31, 2017.

Riggle, D. L. (1987), Private Sewage Disposal System Plan 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, February 23, 1987.

Sigma Consulting Engineers, Inc. (1999), Structural Calculations, Shotcreting Existing Retaining Wall, 33608 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 9991, November 22, 1999.

Site-Specific References (33610 Pacific Coast Highway):

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2010), Geotechnical Investigation Report For a Proposed Single Family Residence, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 09050, March 22, 2010.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2012), Supplemental Geotechnical Letter For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 09050, August 3, 2012.

Site-Specific References (33616 Pacific Coast Highway):

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2009), Supplemental Letter, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, December 23, 2009.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2011a), Supplemental Geotechnical Letter For a Proposed Remedial Slope Repair, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, August 3, 2012.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2012), Final Compaction Report For A Slope Restoration, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, November 12, 2012.

Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (2013a), Final Compaction Report For The Backfilling of the Basement Walls, 33616 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 02068, September 16, 2013.

Site-Specific References (33730 Pacific Coast Highway):

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012), Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, March 20, 2012.
296
March 26, 2020 Page 30
Project No.: LP1431
GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012a), Supplemental Report No. 1, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, June 22, 2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2012b), Supplemental Report No. 2, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, October 8, 2012.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (2013), Supplemental Report No. 3, Sea Wall Foundation Recommendations, 33730 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, Project No.: 4245, March 6, 2013.

Site-Specific References (33740 Pacific Coast Highway):

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1998), Limited Geologic and Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residence Stabilization, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, December 1, 1998.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1999), Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, July 6, 1999.

GeoConcepts, Inc. (1999a), Addendum Report, 33740 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, California, Project No.: 1614, December 16, 1999.