Malibu City Council
August 14, 2023

Agenda Item # 3.B.6.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 26, 2023 Meeting date: August 14, 2023 Subject: Amendment to Art Loan Agreement with Artist Anna Kelly RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the recommendation from the Malibu Arts Commission to accept Amendment No. 1 to the Art Loan Agreement with Artist Anna Kelly to display her artwork Saving Malibu through August 25, 2023.

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

WORK PLAN: This item was not included in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-2023.

This project is part of normal staff operations. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2023-24 Work Plan is finalized.

DISCUSSION: In August 2021, Artist Anna Kelly contacted the City regarding the donation of two paintings, Saving Malibu and Fallen Hero. The paintings were part of Ms.

Kelly's Saving Malibu art series, which depicted the heroic sacrifice and courage of the firefighters who risked their lives for Malibu during the 2018 Woolsey Fire.

The Malibu Arts Commission (Commission) reviewed Ms. Kelly's request at the September 28, 2021 Regular meeting. The Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to the Council that the City accept one of the paintings, Saving Malibu, on loan for one year with the intent, but not the guarantee to display the piece with an option to renew the loan after one year upon mutual consent of the City and Ms. Kelly.

The recommendation also included displaying the artwork in the Multipurpose Room at City Hall (Attachment 2).

City Council approved the Commission's recommendation on November 8, 2021, and entered into a loan agreement with Ms. Kelly on July 12, 2022.

City Council Meeting
08-14-23
Item

3.B.6.

Agenda Item # 3.B.6.

In May 2023, staff notified Ms. Kelly that the loan agreement term would end on July 12, 2023, and she requested an additional one-year extension. At the June 27, 2023 Regular meeting, the Commission reviewed the artist's request and discussed opportunities to feature new artwork during the 2023-2024 term. The Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to extend the art display of Saving Malibu through August 25, 2023. The term of the Art Loan Agreement will end September 1, 2023, which allows the artist one week to pick up the artwork from City Hall (Attachment 1).

The Commission will recommend an artwork replacement for City Council consideration at a future meeting.

ATTACHMENTS: 1) Amendment No. 1 with Artist Anna Kelly
2) Saving Malibu painting in City Hall Multipurpose Room Attachment 1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN AND LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR DISPLAY OF ARTWORK

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MALIBU AND ARTIST LENDER
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LOAN AND LICENSE AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Malibu on this ___________day of _____________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, (hereinafter referred to as “City”), and Anna Teng Kelly (hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”).

The City and the Lender agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A.

B.

On July 12, 2023, the City entered into an Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Lender to install an original oil painting titled, “Saving Malibu” (the “Artwork”) in the Multipurpose Room at Malibu City Hall, on the City’s website, on the Malibu Arts Commission website and on the City’s social media platforms.

The loan period of the Agreement expires on July 12, 2023, and thus the City desires to amend the Agreement to extend the loan period of the Agreement to September 1, 2023.

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

1. 2.

3. 4.

Recitals B is hereby amended to read in its entirety, as follows:

The Artwork will be on loan to the City from July 12, 2023, to September 1, 2023.

Section 5.0 – Loan Period amended to read in its entirety, as follows:

The Artwork will be on loan to the City from July 12, 2023 to September 1, 2023 (this loan period shall be referred to as the “Loan Period”).

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

All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment No. 1 remain in full force and effect.

This Agreement is executed on ________________, 2023 at Malibu, California, and effective as of July 12, 2023.

CITY OF MALIBU:
____________________________________
STEVE McCLARY, City Manager
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Amendment No.1 to
Artist Loan and License Agreement
Anna Teng Kelly

APPROVED AS TO FORM: LENDER:
___________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney By: ANNA TENG KELLY, Artist Digitally signed by Anna T. Kelly
DN: cn=Anna T. Kelly, c=US, o=None, ou=Self, Anna T. Kelly Location: Pasadena, CA [email protected]
Reason: Amendment
_____________________________________ Date: 2023.07.14 12:21:40 -07'00' Saving Malibu
Anna Kelly
Oil on linen canvas, 22” x 28”
Framed: 29” x 35”
Attachment 2

Agenda Item # 3.B.7.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: August 3, 2023 Meeting date: August 14, 2023 Subject: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Civic Solutions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc. for contract planning services.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Agreement is for a two-year term, and the total compensation for the agreement spans three fiscal years. A sum of $1,070,000 was included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2022-23 in Account No. 101-2001-5100.00 (Planning – Professional Services), which carries forward into FY 2023-24 and includes all contract planning services. Contract planners from varying agencies are assigned to projects based on proposed development characteristics and available planners’ expertise. No additional funding is currently needed for FY 2023-24.

WORK PLAN: This project was included as Item 4.l.1. in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-23. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2023-24 Work Plan is finalized.

DISCUSSION: On October 11, 2021, the City entered into an agreement with Consultant, Civic Solutions, Inc. for long range and current planning services effective February 28, 2022, through February 28, 2024, for a total of $360,000. Funding in the amount of $180,000 was allocated for Year 1 of the agreement. Actual contract planning services with the Consultant in Year 1 totaled $220,223.75 due to Planning staffing shortages. FY 2022-23 Year 2 actual costs reached $134,647resulting in a balance of $5,128for FY 2023-24 contract planning services. Based on the number of complex projects assigned to the Consultant at the Project Manager and Senior Planner level and the time and expense required to present proposed developments at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, at this time staff is requesting increasing the City Council Meeting
08-14-23
Item

3.B.7.

Agenda Item # 3.B.7.
not-to-exceed amount by $60,000 to maintain the Consultant’s services through February 28, 2024.

Consultant planners have been working on the Lechuza Beach access improvements, the Malibu skate park, and a variety of Caltrans and residential proposed developments.

Staff will continue to monitor the Department’s workload and will evaluate additional staff augmentation as needed.

ATTACHMENT: Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Malibu on August 14, 2023, by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, hereinafter referred to as City, and Civic Solutions, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Consultant.

The City and the Consultant agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A. On October 11, 2021, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for contract planning services (the “Agreement”).

B. The City desires to amend the Agreement to increase the Budget Schedule for services to reflect increased assignments of complex projects to Project Manager and Senior level planners based on the Scope of Work approved in Exhibit A.

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

1. Section 4.0 – Compensation for Services, of the Agreement, is hereby amended to increase from $360,000 to a not to exceed amount of $420,000.

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

3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment No. 1 remain in full force and effect.

This Agreement is executed on ______________________, at Malibu, California, and effective as of August 14, 2023.

CITY OF MALIBU:
____________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
_____________________________________ ____________________________________ TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney By: THOMAS G. MERRELL Title: President

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work & Schedule of Fees

PART A - LONG RANGE PLANNING SERVICES
The Consultant will provide advanced level planning services such as project management, ordinance development, policy development, environmental review and other related tasks. The scope of services shall include the following but are not limited to:
• General project management including establishing project tasks, schedule, and expectations • Processing of City Zoning Ordinances and General Plan Amendments including the preparation of staff reports, resolutions, and ordinances
• Processing of Local Coastal Program Amendments including the preparation of staff reports, resolutions, ordinances, and complete the California Coastal Commission ( CCC) certification process including amendment submittal, serve as the liaison with the CCC staff, attend hearings, and preparation of final documents to process CCC suggested modifications • Coordinate with outside agencies and City Departments as required to process projects • Review projects for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Deliverables may include: Planning Commission, City Council, Zoning Ordinances Revisions and Code Enforcement City Council Subcommittee, Environmental Review Board (ERB) staff reports, resolutions, ordinances, presentations, public hearing notices, and other meeting materials as required

PART B - CURRENT PLANNING SERVICES
The selected consultant shall perform professional municipal planning case management services at the Project Manager, Senior Planner or Associate Planner level for applicant-initiated applications as assigned by the Planning Department to include the following services: conformance reviews, discretionary case processing, project management, staff report preparation, CEQA documentation, review of conditions of approval, and attendance at required meetings for the Environmental Review Board (ERB), Planning Commission, and City Council. As part of this work, the selected consultant shall:
• Demonstrate expertise similar to a Project Manager, Senior Planner or Associate Planner, as assigned, in municipal planning case management.
• Review applications for complex residential and commercial development; evaluate alternatives and conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, Local Coastal Program, and State laws; and prepare recommendations for action by City staff, elected or appointed officials.
• Process coastal development permits, administrative plan reviews, site plan reviews, minor modifications, variances, conditional use permits, subdivisions, parcel maps, and other entitlements as assigned.
• Confer with and provide information to property owners, contractors, developers, engineers, architects, and the public regarding conformance to standards, plans, specifications and codes; explain codes, requirements and procedures, and evaluates alternatives. • Coordinate with outside agencies and City departments involved as part of the development review process.
• Conduct final planning inspections, story pole visits, and other site visits as necessary. • Review applications and projects for compliance with CEQA. • Make presentations to the Planning Commission, City Council, and various committees and commissions, and attend evening meetings as required.
• Prepare staff reports, resolutions, and ordinances for the Planning Commission, Environmental Review Board, and City Council.

February 2022

EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9DA7F64-E82B-4FF2-BB7C-C443477FBB98 Scope of Work

• May be requested to work on long-range planning projects. • Demonstrate an area of expertise with regulatory documents similar to those used by the City of Malibu Planning Department:

City of Malibu Local Coastal Program
City of Malibu Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivision) and Title 17 (Zoning) City of Malibu General Plan
City Maps including LCP maps, Zoning Maps, Land Use Maps, Cultural Resources Maps, Overlay Districts, etc.

Coastal Act
CEQA Guidelines
Subdivision Map Act
Permit Streamlining Act
• Prepare documentation, in a form prescribed by the City, normally associated with case processing. • Incomplete/Complete Letters processed within 30 calendar days of project submittal • Noticing Requirements for CDPs shall be processed before applications are deemed complete
• Notice of Decisions for APR/SPRs shall be processed within 30 calendar days of a Notice of Application
• Ensure that Planning fees are paid and included in incomplete letters • Staff reports for the Planning Commission, Environmental Review Board, and City Council shall be submitted to staff in final form including attachments, resolutions, and ordinances, if applicable. This includes thorough editing and proofreading prior to submittal to staff for review.
• Update Planning long range agenda and keep abreast of pertinent deadlines. • The Development Database shall be maintained. All project milestones shall be entered as they are performed. The Note section shall reflect current status of the project and all communications with applicants, owners, appellants, and interested parties. • Attend Planning Department staff meetings only upon the request by the Planning Director or his/her designee
• Attend trainings as requested by the Planning Director or his/her designee • Stay abreast of new City and/or departmental policies and procedures as provided in email, meetings, etc.
• Provide other services as requested by the Planning Director • Review Conditions of Approval prior to final planning approval • Stamp plans at appropriate review stages and conform plans accurately to reflect project approval
• Perform project management duties including the maintenance of the development database and tracking of deadlines, application submittal requirements, and workload.

February 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9DA7F64-E82B-4FF2-BB7C-C443477FBB98 Scope of Work

PART C - OTHER
• Perform project management duties including the maintenance of the development database and tracking of deadlines, application submittal requirements, and workload. • Response Turnaround Times: Respond within one (1) business day to questions from City staff and members of the public Record Keeping: Maintain proper record keeping. Files shall be organized, up to date, and ready for public review at all times including digital records ( e.g., emails). All records shall be date-stamped and properly identified. City records, including planning files, shall not be removed from City Hall without authorization. In addition, the Development Database shall be maintained with all project milestones and reflect current status.
• Meetings: Meetings with applicants and members of the public shall be held in City Hall or on the project site ( e.g., onsite visits). In an effort to create a perception of unbiased level of customer service, socializing with applicants is strongly discouraged. • Demonstrate knowledge of computer applications including Microsoft Office Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, and GIS.

PART D - SCHEDULE OF FEES
This section describes the rates and general payment terms for the services described in this Scope of Work.

1. FEE
Consultant will perform the services on an hourly basis, in accordance with Schedule 1 below. The Not to Exceed Fee represents all cost associated with the delivery of each task. An itemized invoice of specific tasks shall be provided on invoices.

All rates listed below shall include overhead costs including, but not limited to salaries, benefits, Workers Compensation Insurance, office expenses, mileage and courier service. If staff substitutions are necessary, or if staff is promoted, the original rates listed above will still apply.

Additional contract planners shall not be authorized to commence work without the authorization of the Planning Director. The fee rate attached shall apply.

Planner
Project Manager
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Schedule 1 - Hourly Rate
Rate
$150
$135
$125
Schedule 2 -Budget Schedule
Year 1 $220,223.75
Year 2 $199,776.25
These amounts may be changed at the discretion of the Planning Director.

2. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Pre-approved reimbursable expenses will appear on invoices without any markup, with proof of payment, and due and payable within thirty (30) days after receipt by the City.

February 2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: B9DA7F64-E82B-4FF2-BB7C-C443477FBB98

3. NON-BILLABLE ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
Scope of Work

The Consultant will bill only for time spent performing assigned professional work. All other activities associated with carrying out the contract are not billable, and are therefore, considered overhead or administrative functions contained within the hourly rate. Typical examples of non-billable overhead activities are:
• Discussion with staff or applicant about the cost of services or to address billing disputes. • Meetings to discuss work performance, contract or additional services • Travel time to and from the City of Malibu.
• Preparation of invoices and other administrative clerical services • Contract administration, such as preparing or discussing contract amendments • Time spent resolving errors in the event the Consultant is responsible.

February 2022

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Raneika Brooks, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: August 3, 2023 Meeting Date: August 14, 2023 Subject: Appeal No. 23-001 - Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02 (3620 Noranda Lane; Owner: 3620 Noranda Lane, LLC) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 23-37 (Exhibit A), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal No. 23-001 (Exhibit B) and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-104 for the construction of a new single-family residence, a basement including a subterranean garage, a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), exterior site improvements including a new swimming pool, spa, deck, landscape, hardscape, and grading; including Variance (VAR) No. 19-035 to allow for development within the required Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23- 003 for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to 1, Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-012 for the reduction of the required front yard setback by up to 50 percent, and Offer-to-Dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement, for the property located in the Rural Residential-Five Acre (RR-5) zoning district at 3620 Noranda Lane (3620 Noranda Lane, LLC).

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

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

DISCUSSION: The matter is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 17-104, VAR No. 19-035, SPR No. 23-002, MM No. 20-012 and OTD No. 23-001, for an application to construct a new single-family residence and associated development (Attachment 2 of Exhibit D - Project Plans).

City Council Meeting
08-14-23
Item

4.A.
1

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Below is a chronology of the subject property since first noticed for a Planning Commission hearing:
• On November 16, 2020, the subject item was first before the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain to address construction on steep slopes;
• On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and denied the project due to the inability to make the variance findings for construction of accessory development on steep slopes. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution for denial;
• On April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-30 denying CDP No. 17-104;
• On April 26, 2021, the applicant, Vitus Matare, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project;
• On July 12, 2021, the City Council remanded CDP No. 17-104 back to the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to redesign the project to avoid construction on steep slopes;
• On August 24, 2022, the revised project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).
• On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The proposed project did not require a variance for construction on steep slopes but required a site plan review.
• On February 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item and adopted Resolution No. 23-02 (Exhibit C) which approved the project by a 3-2 vote.

On February 13, 2023, Neil Popowitz, filed an appeal application with the City. The appellant contends that the City does not have jurisdiction to issue the CDP pursuant to Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 13.10.2(B) and contends that the construction management plan should be more restrictive and strictly enforced.

The subject application is requesting VAR No. 19-035 to allow for development within the required ESHA buffer, SPR No. 23-003 for development on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1, MM No. 20-012 for the reduction of the required front yard setback by up to 50 percent, and OTD No. 23-001 for a trail easement.

The subject parcel is an irregularly shaped vacant lot, similar to a trapezoid, located in a residentially developed hillside area (Figure 1). The parcel is zoned RR-5 and is approximately 2.8 acres in size. The parcel takes access from the north side of Noranda Lane, a private street.
2

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Figure 1 – Aerial Map
Source: City GIS 2022
According to the LCP ESHA map and the biological assessment on file, the entire parcel, with the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, contains Chaparral ESHA.

Residential development, including related fuel modification, is not a permitted activity per LIP Section 4.5 in Chaparral ESHA. However, pursuant to LIP Section 4.7, “Where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer, the City may only permit development as specified below in Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 of the Malibu LIP in order to provide the owner with an economically viable use of the property.” A single-family residence is a permitted use in the subject zone, and per LIP Section 4.7.1 the proposed residence may be approved within the ESHA subject to additional development standards and conditions to minimize potential impacts to ESHA. These development standards include siting the development in a location that minimizes ESHA impacts and limiting the development area to 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the lot size, whichever is less. The proposed project is sited within the previously disturbed area so as to minimize disturbance and the proposed 7,345 square foot development area is Project Location
3

Agenda Item # 4.A.
less than the 10,000 square feet, the maximum allowed by the LIP. Accordingly, pursuant to LIP Section 4.5.3, a variance (Variance No. 19-035) is required for development within the ESHA. Based on the submitted materials, including the biological assessment and site survey, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, no other feasible alternative sites exist that would avoid impacts on ESHA.

Although the proposed development is sited on the flattest portion of the lot, within the previously existing building pad, the majority of the lot consists of steep slopes. Although the footprint has been reduced, a portion of the proposed development is sited on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1, Therefore, the applicant is requesting SPR No. 23-003 to allow for development on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1. Additionally, the accessory development has been re-sited to avoid construction on variance slopes.

In addition to the variance for encroachment into ESHA and site plan review construction on steep slopes, the applicant is requesting MM No. 20-012 for 50 percent reduction in the required front yard setback from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet. The minor modification reduces the development area within ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes.

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellant argues that the City does not have jurisdiction to issue the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) pursuant to Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 13.10.2(B) and contends that the construction management plan should be more restrictive and strictly enforced. The full text of the appeal document can be found in Exhibit B. The Planning Commission agenda report, in which staff recommended approval of the project, is included as Exhibit D. The Planning Commission agenda report includes a complete overview of the surrounding area, project conformance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and MMC, and a discussion of all findings required to approve the application. The adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02, approving the project, is included as Exhibit C.

Appeal Item 1. The City lacks jurisdiction to hear this application and does not fall within the criteria specified in LIP section 13.10.2 (B)(1) or (B)(2).

Staff Analysis
The City has permitting jurisdiction to issue CDP No. 17-104, the proposed project is considered new development and does not require permit issuance from the California Coastal Commission. Pursuant LIP 13.10.2 (A) the subject parcel is not located on tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands as described in Section 30519(b) of the Public Resources Code or as described as areas of Coastal Commission Permit 4

Agenda Item # 4.A.
jurisdiction illustrated on the Local Coastal Program Post-Certification Permit and Jurisdiction Map as amended.

Although the Coastal Commission issued Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 5-86-472 (Exhibit E), the permit expired in 1988 therefore, the jurisdiction for new development would fall under the City. Pursuant to LIP 13.10.2(B):
“the Commission retains authority over coastal development permits issued by the Commission including condition compliance. Where either new development, or a modification to existing development, is proposed on a site where development was authorized in a Commission-issued coastal development permit either prior to certification of the LCP or through a de novo action on an appeal of a city-approved coastal development permit and the permit has not expired or been forfeited, the applicant shall apply to the City for the coastal development permit except for:

1. Requests for extension, reconsideration and revocation of the Commission-issued permits;

2. Development that would lessen or negate the purpose of any specific permit condition, any mitigation required by recorded documents, any recorded offer to dedicate or grant of easement or any restriction/limitation or other mitigation incorporated through the project description by the permittee, of a Commission-issued coastal permit.

In any of these circumstances, the applicant must seek to file an application with the Coastal Commission for an amendment to the Commission-issued coastal development permit and authorization for the proposed new development or modification to existing development. The Coastal Commission will determine whether the application for amendment shall be accepted for filing pursuant to the provisions of Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 13166.” (emphasis added)
CDP No. 5-86-472 expired in 1988 and no project was built. Therefore, pursuant to LIP Section 13.10.2(B) the applicant is required to apply to the City for the coastal development permit. LIP Section 13.10.2(B) does not allow, nor grant, the Coastal Commission jurisdiction to issue a coastal development permit for the proposed project. In summary, due to the location of the property/project, the nature of the project, and the expiration of the previously issued expired CDP, the City retains jurisdiction over the coastal development application, and it was properly submitted to the City.

Appeal Item 2. The safety of the neighbors demands the construction management plan to be more restrictive and strictly enforced.
5

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Staff Response
The applicant submitted a construction management plan dated November 20, 2020 (Exhibit F). The construction management plan was reviewed by the Planning Department and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 6, 2023. Planning Commission Resolution 23-02 contains the following conditions of approval:
• Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.
• A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
• 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.

Pursuant to these conditions adopted by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director shall approve the construction management plan prior to building plan check submittal.

The appellant contends, “the owner/contractor should be required to have someone from the City of Malibu on-site to ensure compliance, and there should be an enforcement mechanism, fines/penalties up to and including termination of the permit for violations. For example, delays in excess of three minutes due to construction traffic on Noranda Lane should result in a $500 fine.” The appellant also believes the construction management plan should limit the use of Noranda Lane to one construction vehicle at a time, construction vehicles should be prohibited to park or stop along the Noranda Lane, and the language should be added to restrict fencing or staging within the easement area.

The City does not require a staff member to be onsite during construction (nor does it have sufficient staff to take this extraordinary action), however should there be a violation of the construction management plan, code enforcement action can be pursued. Moreover, staff believes the construction management plan on file is sufficient to maintain circulation and access to surrounding properties during construction activities. Failure to comply with provisions outlined in the MMC are subject to penalties as defined in MMC Section

1.16.010. Violations may also result in a stop work order and the halt of construction on the site.
6

Agenda Item # 4.A.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15303(e) - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The City has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: To date, staff has received no correspondence.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On April 27, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and a public notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500-feet of the subject property (Exhibit G).

SUMMARY: Based on the record as a whole, including but not limited to all written and oral testimony offered in connection with this matter, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 23-XX, denying the appeal and approving CDP No. 17-104, VAR No. 19-035, SPR No. 23-003, MM No. 20-012 and OTD No. 23-001.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 23-37
B. Appeal No. 23-001
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02
D. February 6, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report Item 5.B.

1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Applicant Memorandum dated January 5, 2023

5. Story Pole Photographs dated January 5, 2023

6. Construction Management Plan

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. November 16, 2020, Planning Commission Agenda Report Item No. 5.D. – https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4602?fileID=17707

9. March 15, 2021, Planning Commission Agenda Report Item No. 5.C. – https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4806?fileID=19411

10. July 12, 2021, City Council Agenda Report Item No. 4.D. to remand back to the Planning Commission:
https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/5045?fileID=23036 7

Agenda Item # 4.A.

E. Coastal Development Permit 5-86-472
F. Construction Management Plan dated November 20, 2020 G. Public Hearing Notice
8 RESOLUTION NO. 23-37

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

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL NO. 23-001 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17-104, VARIANCE NO. 19-035, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012, AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-001, FOR

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A

BASEMENT INCLUDING A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE, A NEW ONSITE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, EXTERIOR SITE

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A NEW SWIMMING POOL, SPA, DECK,
LANDSCAPE, HARDSCAPE AND GRADING; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 19-035 TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA BUFFER, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003 FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1, BUT FLATTER THAN 2.5 TO 1, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012

FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BY UP TO 50 PERCENT AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-001 FOR A TRAIL

EASEMENT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RURAL
RESIDENTIAL-FIVE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 3620 NORANDA LANE (3620 NORANDA LANE, LLC)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On November 8, 2017, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-104 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development, was submitted to the Planning Department by Vitus Matare. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review.

B. On November 19, 2019, the application was deemed complete.

C. On November 27, 2019, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

D. On October 8, 2020, 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.

E. On October 22, 2020, a revised Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On November 2, 2020, the subject item was continued to the November 16, 2020 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

G. On November 16, 2020, the subject item was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore re-design options to avoid construction on one to one slopes.

Exhibit A
9 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
H. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and denied the project due to the inability to make the variance findings for construction of accessory development on steep slopes. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution for denial.

J. On April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-30 denying CDP No. 17-104.

K. On April 26, 2021, the applicant, Vitus Matare, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project.

L. On June 17, 2021, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On July 12, 2021, the City Council remanded CDP No. 17-104 back to the Planning Commission.

N. On August 24, 2022, the revised project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

O. On December 22, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

P. January 12, 2023, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

Q. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The proposed project did not require a variance for construction on steep slopes but required a site plan review.

R. On February 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and approved the application and adopted approval Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02.

S. On February 13, 2023, an appeal was submitted by Neil Popowitz. 10 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
T. On April 27, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupant within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

U. On May 22, 2023, the City Council continued the subject item to the June 26, 2023, City Council meeting.

V. On July 20, 2023, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupant within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

W. On August 14, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written materials, public testimony, and other information in the record, including the City Council Agenda report, and based thereon makes the following determination.

SECTION 2. Appeal of Action.

The appeal filed by Neil Popowitz contends that the City does not have jurisdiction to issue the CDP pursuant to Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 13.10.2(B) and contends that the construction management plan should be more restrictive and strictly enforced.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denying the Appeal.

Based on evidence contained within the record including, but not limited to, the content of the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denies the appeal, and approves the project.

The appellant contends that the City lacks jurisdiction to hear this application and that the applicant needed to apply to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) instead of the City for a CDP pursuant to LIP section 13.10.2(B)(1) or (B)(2). However, appellant fundamentally misreads Section 13.10.2(B). This section provide two types of situations where an applicant needs to apply to the CCC instead of the City for a CDP. These provisions only apply when the CCC issued a CDP on the property and the CDP has not expired or been forfeited. In this case, while a CDP was issued for development on the property, this CDP (CDP No. 5-86-472) expired in 1988 and no project was built.

Therefore, pursuant to LIP section 13.10.2(B) the applicant is required to apply to the City for the CDP. 13.10.2(B) does not allow, nor grant, the CCC jurisdiction to issue a CDP for the proposed project.

Further, the City has permitting jurisdiction to issue CDP No. 17-104; the proposed project is considered new development and does not require permit issuance from the CCC. Pursuant LIP

13.10.2(A) the subject parcel is not located on tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands as described in Section 30519(b) of the Public Resources Code or as described as areas of CCC Permit jurisdiction illustrated on the Local Coastal Program Post-Certification Permit and Jurisdiction 11 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
Map as amended.

In summary, due to the location of the property/project, the nature of the project, and the expiration of the previously issued CDP, the City retains jurisdiction over the coastal development application and it was properly submitted to the City.

Additionally, the appellant contends that the safety of the neighbors demands the construction management plan to be more restrictive and strictly enforced. The applicant submitted a construction management plan dated November 20, 2020. The construction management plan was reviewed by the Planning Department and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on February 6, 2023. Planning Commission Resolution 23-02 contains the following conditions of approval:
• Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way. • A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
• 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.

Pursuant to these conditions adopted by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director shall approve the construction management plan prior to building plan check submittal.

The measures required by the Construction Management Plan are sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the project, and are enforceable. The extraordinary measures requested by Appellant are not required to make the findings made below by the City Council, and the City does not have staff available that could monitor onsite all construction activities as requested by Appellant. As a result, and for all of the reasons described above and below, the Council finds that the evidence shows the proposed project is consistent with the LIP and MMC.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (a) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15303 (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and 15304 (b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2). 12 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
SECTION 5. Coastal Development Permit Findings
Based on the evidence in the record (including, but not limited to, the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council) the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denying the appeal and approving the project and finds that evidence in the record supports the required findings for approval of the project.

The Council is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion of the proposed 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 staff, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the discretionary requests.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. The property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Additionally, the property owner has proposed offer-to-dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement along the westerly property line following Noranda Lane. Therefore, no potential project-related or cumulative impact on public access and/or recreation is anticipated to result from the proposed project. The proposed project conforms to the public access and recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

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

Smaller Project – A smaller residence could be proposed on the project site. However, reducing the size of the residence would not significantly reduce impacts to public or private views. Should the footprint be reduced, the direct land disturbance of construction would be reduced. However, a smaller project would not eliminate the need for an ESHA variance or the site plan review for construction on steep slopes. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable non-exempt grading, TDSF for hillside development, impermeable coverage and the height limitations of the LCP and the MMC.

Alternative Location – The proposed single-family residence could be relocated further to the north on the subject parcel to eliminate the MM request for the reduction of the front yard setback.

However, most of the parcel to the north of the proposed building pad consists of steep slopes.

Relocating the proposed development, would require more grading, land disturbance and further construction on steep slopes. Additionally, relocating the proposed project would expand the 13 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
development area further into ESHA. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the MMC and LCP, inclusive of the discretionary requests. In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative location would offer any environmental advantages.

Proposed Project – Due to site constraints, ESHA requirements, and steep slopes, the building pad is limited. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated exterior site improvements compliant with hillside development standards. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is subject to hillside development standards and the applicant has reduced the proposed square footage to comply with those standards. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the discretionary requests. Additionally, the proposed project was redesigned to eliminate the Variance for construction on steep slopes. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. The subject property is located within a designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. The ERB reviewed the project on August 24, 2022 and did not have associated recommendations. The ERB recommended the project move forward as proposed.

B. Variance Findings for Development in the ESHA buffer and Fuel Modification to Extend into the ESHA (LIP Section 13.26.5)

1. Exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel include ESHA and steep slopes. With the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, the entire property meets the definition of ESHA. Based on the submitted material, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, there are no other feasible alternative sites that exist that would avoid impacts on ESHA. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would preclude any development on the property. Adjacent properties are similarly developed and contain ESHA based on the LCP ESHA Map and denial of the variance would deprive the property owner of developing his property in a similar manner.

2. The City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and LACFD have reviewed the proposed project and determined it was consistent with all applicable safety, health or welfare regulations and policies.

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

3. The granting of the proposed variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation and will allow the property owner to develop the site consistent with neighboring properties. Therefore, granting the proposed variance does not constitute a special privilege to the property owner.
14 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

4. The proposed variance will allow the proposed residence, including related fuel modification, to extend into Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. This variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the zoning provisions nor LCP goals, objectives and policies as variances to ESHA protection standards may be granted pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A). The proposed project is consistent with the LCP as impacts to ESHA cannot be avoided and are offset in conformance with LIP Section 4.8.1. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator and City Public Works Department have determined the proposed project was consistent with the LCP and applicable goals and policies, inclusive of the proposed variances, and minor modification.

5. As previously discussed, the fuel modification for any building cannot avoid impacts to ESHA. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7, which states that "where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer, the City may only permit development as specified in Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4". LIP Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 have been satisfied given the proposed development area (7,345-square feet) does not exceed 10,000 square feet, fencing is limited to the development area, and agricultural uses and confined animals are not included.

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

7. The proposed project consists of a new single-family residence and accessory uses on a previously developed site. The proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed development activities are consistent with specific ESHA protection standards. Therefore, the proposed variance would not authorize an unpermitted use or activity.

8. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that there are no alternate building sites or configurations which would eliminate the need for a variance because the fuel modification for a structure of any size would extend into surrounding Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA.

9. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. In addition to being consistent with the LCP, the proposed variance will comply with all requirements of State and local law in that the proposed project will be required to obtain applicable permits from the Environmental Sustainability Department prior to construction. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

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

C. Site Plan Review for development on slopes steeper than 3:1, but flatter than 2.5:1 [LIP Section 13.27]
15 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The property is located in a developed residential neighborhood and surrounding development consists of single-family residences, with accessory development. Adjacent development properties exhibit similar topography. Staff conducted an analysis of surrounding property characteristics in order to assess the project with regard to neighborhood character.

Neighboring properties were also constructed on similar slopes and feature development that blends into the surrounding topography. Therefore, the portions of the structure proposed on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

3. On January 3, 2023, staff visited the subject parcel after story poles representing the location and height of the proposed buildings were erected. Based on staff’s site visit, it was determined that while portions of the single-family residence are visible from Encinal Canyon Road, the project as designed is not anticipated to result in adverse scenic or visual impacts. Given the location and design of the project, intervening topography, existing development, and the implementation of conditions of approval for lighting, the project is not expected to create significant obstructions or encroachments into public views and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6. Therefore, the project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views.

4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies, such as the LACFD. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.

D. Minor Modification for a reduced front yard setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. As previously stated in Section A, Finding 1, the project has been reviewed and analyzed for conformance with the LCP. Additionally, the reduced front yard setback limits the impact to ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes. The project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The neighborhood is comprised of single-family residences on lots of varying sizes.

The single-family residence would be in character with surrounding residential development.

Based on observations during the site visit and inspection of the story poles, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, does not adversely affect neighborhood character. Additionally, given the constraints of the steep slopes to the north, the residence needed to be located within the front yard setback.

3. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) 16 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

1. The fuel modification zone of a structure of any size on the subject parcel would disturb ESHA and the project as proposed has been sited as close as possible to Noranda Lane to minimize ESHA impacts. A residence and related fuel modification are not permitted uses in the applicable Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Therefore, the application of LIP Chapter 4 (ESHA overlay ordinance) would not allow construction of a residence on this undeveloped parcel.

2. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 1, the proposed project is consistent with all provisions of the LCP. As previously discussed in Section C, Finding 1, the subject parcel cannot be developed without disturbance of Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Because ESHA impacts could not be avoided, LIP Section 4.7.1 states the allowable development area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The proposed development area (7,345-square feet) is less than 10,000 square feet, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.7.1. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provision of LIP Section 4.7.

F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)

1. The project does not involve the removal of any native trees. No direct impacts to native trees are anticipated as a result of project construction based on the Native Tree Report prepared on November 17, 2017. Regardless, the project is conditioned to protect native trees during construction.

2. Based on the Native Tree Report, no removal of native trees is proposed. While no impacts are anticipated, the project is conditioned to protect native trees within or adjacent to the construction area.

3. Condition No. 23 has been added to protect the native protected trees during construction.

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

1. An analysis of the project’s potential visual impact was conducted through site inspections, story poles, and review of the architectural plans. The proposed project allows for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development. The project is designed to minimize visual impacts and meets the requirements of the hillside development standards.

Additionally, the proposed development is minimally visible from Encinal Canyon Road based on review of the story poles. It is not anticipated that the project will result in adverse scenic or visual impacts; therefore, the project is consistent with LIP Chapter 6.

2. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

3. As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, the project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impact. Therefore, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would 17 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the revised project will not have significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

H. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports prepared by Calwest Geotechnical dated January 9, 2018, and October 5, 2017; reports prepared by Land Phases Inc. dated January 8, 2018 and September 9, 2017; and reports prepared by EPD Consultants dated September 27, 2017. The aforementioned reports are referenced in the geotechnical review sheet.

These reports are on file at City Hall. The reports evaluate site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area. Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts associated with these hazards to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

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

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Finding A3, there are no feasible alternatives.

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

I. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
The subject property is not located between the first public road and the sea or on a bluff; however, the property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected. 18 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
Lateral Access – The project site is not located along the shore. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Vertical Access – The project site is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, and access to the Pacific Ocean is not possible. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Blufftop Access – The project is not located on a blufftop, and therefore, no conditions for blufftop access are required.

Recreational Access – The project site is not adjacent to, does not include, nor contain any access ways to existing or planned recreational areas. Therefore, no conditions or findings for recreational access are required.

Trail Access – The LCP Parklands Map shows the Coastal Slope Trail located on the northern portion of the property. No development will take place on or near the trail and therefore no impacts are expected. However, the property owner is proposing an offer-to-dedicate a trail easement.

SECTION 6. City Council Approval.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 17-104, VAR No. 19-035, SPR No. 23-003, MM No. 20-012, and OTD No. 23-001 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approval includes:
a. 4,789-square foot, single-family residence;
b. 1,801-square foot basement and subterranean garage;
c. New OWTS;
d. New swimming pool and spa;
e. Associated pool equipment (to be fully screened);
f. New lower level decks;
g. New upper level deck;
h. 3,299-square feet of new landscaping;
i. New 25,000 gallon underground water tank;
j. New 5,000 gallon underground water tank;
k. 581 cubic yards of non-exempt grading;
19 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
l. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 19-035 for encroachment into ESHA;
ii. SPR No. 23-003 for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to 1; and
iii. MM No. 20-012 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped January 3, 2023. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

1. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

2. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 6 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

3. This resolution, signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet of the development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check, and the City of Malibu Public Works Department for an encroachment permit (as applicable).

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

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

6. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, LACFD, and CSLC as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.
20 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

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

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

Biology

9. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 108,671 gallons per year. The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 44,032 gpy, thus meeting the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

10. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife.

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

11. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7.1, the allowable development area is limited to 10,000 square feet as all feasible building areas will result in impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

12. Prior to final Planning inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.53.

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

13. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.8.1, all new development shall include mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) from the removal, conversion, or modification of natural habitat for new development, including required fuel modification and brush clearance. The proposed project will result in 0.96 acres of permanent impacts (development footprint and/or Fuel Modification Zones A and/or B) and partial impacts (Fuel Modification Zone C). One of the following three Habitat Impact Mitigation methods shall be required: (1) habitat restoration; (2) habitat conservation; or (3) in-lieu fee for habitat conservation. The CDP shall include conditions setting forth the requirements for habitat mitigation. Prior to final plan check the applicant shall provide either a detailed restoration plan, a habitat conservation plan, or evidence of payment of in lieu fees to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
21 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

14. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

15. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

16. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

17. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

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

19. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

20. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

21. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.

22. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

23. 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.

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

25. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

26. Necessary boundary fencing shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the 22 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

27. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (landscape and fuel modification plan). Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

28. Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

Environmental Health

29. Prior to Final OWTS Plot Plan: 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).

30. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then 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).

31. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the 23 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

32. 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.

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

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

35. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

36. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between 24 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
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.

37. 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 Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. 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.

38. The City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

39. City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained

40. 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.

Geology

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

42. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff 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.

Grading/ Drainage

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

Erosion Controls
Hydraulic Mulch
Hydroseeding
Soil Binders
Straw Mulch
25 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
Geotextiles and Mats
Wood Mulching
Sediment Controls
Fiber Rolls
Gravel Bag Berm
Street Sweeping and/ or Vacuum
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Scheduling
Check Dam
Additional Controls
Wind Erosion Controls
Stabilized Construction Entrance/ Exit
Stabilized Construction Roadway
Entrance/ Exit Tire Wash
Non-Storm Water Management
Vehicle and Equipment Washing
Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Spill Prevention and Control
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.

44. 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.

45. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic 26 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan;
e. If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan;
f. 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; g. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
h. 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.

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

47. A digital (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post construction BMP’s 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 drains lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or Private Street and any drainage easements.

48. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the stormwater runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

49. 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 27 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.

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

50. 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 QQMP 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.

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

52. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.
28 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________
Fuel Modification

53. The project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan prior to the issuance of final building permits.

Colors and Materials

54. 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.

55. 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.

Swimming Pool / Spa

56. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

57. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section

3.5.3(A).

58. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall.

59. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach in to the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

60. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
29 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

61. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section 13.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.

62. Pursuant to MMC Section 9.20.040(B), all ponds, decorative fountains shall require a water recirculating/recycling system.

Outdoor Lighting

63. 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.

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

65. 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.

66. 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.

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

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

69. 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.

Construction / Framing
30 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

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

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

72. 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.

73. 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.

74. 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.

75. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.

76. 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.

Deed Restrictions
31 Resolution No. 23-37

______________________

77. 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 Planning department staff prior to final planning approval.

78. 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. 67-73.

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

79. In order to implement the property owner's proposal of an offer to dedicate a 10-foot easement for a public access hiking, biking, and equestrian trail easement for passive recreational use as part of this project, the property owner agrees to complete the following prior to final Planning Department approval: the property owner shall execute and record a document, in a form and content acceptable to the Planning Director and California Coastal Commission (CCC), irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency or private association approved by the CCC an easement for an easement for a public access hiking, biking, and equestrian trail easement for passive recreational use. The document shall provide that the offer of dedication shall not be used or construed to allow anyone, prior to acceptance of the offer, to interfere with any rights of public access acquired through use which may exist on the property. The document shall also provide that there shall be no gate(s) at the entrance to or exit from the easement. The offer shall provide the public the right to pass and re-pass over the dedicated route. The document shall be recorded free of prior liens which the Planning Director and/or CCC determines may affect the interest being conveyed, and free of any other encumbrances which may affect said interest. The offer shall run with the land in favor of the People of the State of California, binding all successors and assignees, and the offer shall be irrevocable for a period of 21 years, such period running from the date of recording. The recording document shall include a formal legal description and graphic depiction, prepared by a licensed surveyor, of both the property owner's entire parcel and the easement area.

Fixed Conditions

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

81. 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. 32 Resolution No. 23-37

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2023.

BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

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

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 33 Exhibit B
34 35
36 37

1. The City Lacks Jurisdiction to hear this Application.

The Coastal Commission issued Coastal Development Permit 5-86-472 for development of this same property in 1986. That permit expired in 1988.

Section 13.10.2 of the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan, adopted September 13, 2002 (LIP), sets forth when the City and when the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over development in the City of Malibu. It sets forth in pertinent part at § 13.10.2(B):
“B. The Commission retains authority over coastal development permits issued by the Commission including condition compliance. Where either new development, or a modification to existing development, is proposed on a site where development was authorized in a Commission-issued coastal development permit either prior to certification of the LCP or through a de novo action on an appeal of a city approved coastal development permit and the permit has not expired or been forfeited, the applicant shall apply to the City for the coastal development permit except for:

1. Requests for extension, reconsideration and revocation of the Commissionissued permits;

2. Development that would lessen or negate the purpose of any specific permit condition, any mitigation required by recorded documents, any recorded offer to dedicate or grant of easement or any restriction/limitation or other mitigation incorporated through the project description by the permittee, of a Commissionissued coastal permit.

In any of these circumstances, the applicant must seek to file an application with the Coastal Commission for an amendment to the Commission-issued coastal development permit and authorization for the proposed new development or modification to existing development.

The Coastal Commission will determine whether the application for amendment shall be accepted for filing pursuant to the provisions of Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 13166.”
The basis for the Planning Commission taking jurisdiction over Coastal Development Permit No. 17- 104, Variance No. 19-035, Site Plan Review 23-003, and Minor Modification No. 20-012 was the Determination of Notice and Hearing Requirements signed by Associate Planner Jessica Cleavenger on November 20, 2019. That document relies on LIP § 13.10.2(B) for jurisdiction over the application.

However, in order to have jurisdiction to issue the permit in this instance, ALL of the following must occur:

1. The application is for new development or a modification to existing development, AND

2. Is proposed on a site where development was authorized in a Commission issued coastal development permit, which permit has NOT expired or been forfeited, AND
38 3. Where the application does not fall within the criteria specified in LIP section

13.10.2(B)(1) or (B)(2).

The clear language of LIP § 13.10.2(B) and the Determination of Notice and Hearing Requirements is that all three prerequisites must be satisfied to give the City jurisdiction, and yet it is equally clear that all the prerequisites cannot be fulfilled.

The first prerequisite is fulfilled as Coastal Development Permit No. 17-104 is for new development.

The second prerequisite is NOT fulfilled because development was authorized in a Coastal Commission development permit which HAS expired or been forfeited.

The third prerequisite is NOT fulfilled because LIP § 13.10.2(B)(2) does not allow for development that would lessen or negate any specific permit condition, and the 1986 permit strictly limited construction to 3,267 square feet of improvements – a 2,517 square foot residence and 750 square foot guest house. Coastal Development Permit No. 17-104, as approved by the Planning Commission, calls for a significantly larger improvement, with a Total Development Square Footage of 5,189 square feet, thereby negating a specific condition of the 1986 permit.

Thus, pursuant to the clear language of LIP § 13.10.2(B), when, as in this case, the prerequisites are not met, the applicant must seek to file an application with the Coastal Commission for an amendment to the Commission-issued coastal development permit and authorization for the proposed new development or modification to existing development.

The applicant was obligated to bring this application before the Coastal Commission and the City of Malibu Planning Commission did NOT have jurisdiction to hear this matter. City of Malibu Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02 is therefore void as a matter of law.

2. The Safety of the Neighbors Demands the Construction Management Plan be More Restrictive and Strictly Enforced.

The entire City of Malibu is a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Indeed, neighboring properties were destroyed in the recent wildfires in the Malibu Hills surrounding Noranda Lane, a narrow and steep hillside road approximately 20 feet wide, with a single lane in each direction. There are no shoulders for vehicles to pull out on or use to go around blockages. In case of fire, the neighbors have no alternative escape route.

The Planning Commission chose to approve this project, including the proposed Construction Management Plan (CMP), and ignore the numerous concerns of the neighbors to ensure that their ability to escape should there be a fire or other natural disaster. The CMP must be strictly enforced in order to keep Noranda Lane open and unobstructed. The CMP should be made more rigorous in order to minimize blockage and maintain the availability of Noranda Lane to through traffic.

Section 1 of the CMP sets forth in pertinent part that:
“All construction activity shall be confined to APN 4473-026-002…. All grading, construction, material staging and on-site vehicle parking shall be confined to the development footprint and under no circumstances stray into…”
39 It should be modified to read as follows:
“All construction activity shall be confined to APN 4473-026-002…. All grading, construction, material staging, fencing and on-site vehicle parking shall be confined to the development footprint and under no circumstances stray into the road easement area…” Indeed, no fencing shall be permitted between the easement area and the neighbors’ entrance gate, and cannot block the neighbors’ access to their well, which is located in the easement area.

Item 3(c) of the CMP must eliminate the “minimization” of obstruction of the traffic lanes, and should instead read:
“No obstruction of through-traffic lanes at any time;”
Item 3(e) of the CMP should be modified to read as follows:
“Not park or stop anywhere along the entire length of Noranda Lane, it road shoulder, and the road easement area.”
Item 4(c) of the CMP sets forth that:
“Material deliveries inclusive of soil hauling and other material import shall be staged such that no more than one (1) truck enters or leaves the site every 20-minutes.” Item 6 of the CMP should be modified to read, in pertinent part, that:

No materials may be stored off-site or in the private right-of-way for Noranda Lane, including the road easement area, or its cul-de-sac nor is any temporary parking allowed in these areas.”
It should be made clear that vehicles cannot stop and wait in the road while another truck is exiting the worksite. Vehicles should not be permitted to drive up Noranda Lane until the previous vehicle has exited the worksite and is descending toward Encinal Canyon Road. This will ensure to the maximum extent that Noranda Lane is unblocked.

Section 2.1 of the CMP notes that no parking is permitted the entire length of Noranda Lane.

However, it must be made clear that not only may vehicles not park along Noranda Lane but stopping is also prohibited.

Finally, the only way to protect the neighbors is to have strict enforcement of the CMP and consequences for failing to comply. It is not enough that the owner/contractor self-report. That is an invitation to non-compliance. The owner/contractor should be required to have someone from City of Malibu on-site to ensure compliance, and there should be an enforcement mechanism, fines/penalties up to and including termination of the permit for violations. For example, delays in excess of 3 minutes due to construction traffic on Noranda Lane should result in a $500 fine.
40 CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17-104, VARIANCE NO. 19-035, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012, AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-001, FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A BASEMENT

INCLUDING A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE, A NEW ONSITE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, EXTERIOR SITE

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A NEW SWIMMING POOL, SPA, DECK,
LANDSCAPE, HARDSCAPE AND GRADING; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 19-035 TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA BUFFER, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003 FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1, BUT FLATTER THAN 2.5 TO 1, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012

FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BY UP TO 50 PERCENT AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-00 1 FOR A TRAIL

EASEMENT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RURAL
RESIDENTIAL-FIVE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 3620 NORANDA LANE (3620 NORANDA LANE, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On November 8, 2017, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-104 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development, was submitted to the Planning Department by Vitus Matare. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review.

B. On November 19, 2019, the application was deemed complete.

C. On November 27, 2019, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

D. On October 8, 2020, 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.

E. On October 22, 2020, a revised Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On November 2, 2020, the subject item was continued to the November 16, 2020 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

Exhibit C
41 Resolution No 23-02

G. On November 16, 2020, the subject item was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore re-design options to avoid construction on one to one slopes.

H. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and denied the project due to the inability to make the variance findings for construction of accessory development on steep slopes. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution for denial.

J. On April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-30 denying CDPNo. 17-104.

K. On April 26, 2021, the applicant, Vitus Matare, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the project.

L. On June 17, 2021, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On July 12, 2021, the City Council remanded CDP No. 17-104 back to the Planning Commission.

N. On August 24, 2022, the revised project was reviewed by the Enviromnental Review Board (ERB).

0. On December 22, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

P. January 12, 2023, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

Q. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The proposed project did not require a variance for construction on steep slopes but required a site plan review.

R. On February 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission 42 Resolution No 23-02

has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Section 153030 (a) — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15303 (e) —New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and 15304 (b) — Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) local implementation plan (LIP) Sections 13.7(b) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 17-104, VAR No. 19-035, SPR No. 23-003 and MM No. 20-0 12 to allow for construction of a new single-family residence and associated development, located in the Rural Residential-Five Acre zoning district at 3620 Noranda Lane.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system requirements. 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 staff, City Public Works Department, and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the discretionary requests.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. The property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Additionally, the property owner has proposed offer-to-dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement along the westerly property line following Noranda Lane. Therefore, no potential project-related or cumulative impact on public access and/or recreation is anticipated to result from the proposed project. The proposed project conforms to the public access and recreational policies in Chapter 3 ofthe Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 ofthe Public Resources Code).

3. This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the proposed project would significantly lessen adverse impacts on coastal resources. 43 Resolution No 23-02

Smaller Project — A smaller residence could be proposed on the project site. However, reducing the size of the residence would not significantly reduce impacts to public or private views. Should the footprint be reduced, the direct land disturbance of construction would be reduced. However, a smaller project would not eliminate the need for an ESHA variance or the site plan review for construction on steep slopes. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable non-exempt grading, TDSF for hillside development, impermeable coverage and the height limitations of the LCP and the MMC.

Alternative Location — The proposed single-family residence could be relocated further to the north on the subject parcel to eliminate the MM request for the reduction of the front yard setback.

However, most of the parcel to the north of the proposed building pad consists of steep slopes.

Relocating the proposed development, would require more grading, land disturbance and further construction on steep slopes. Additionally, relocating the proposed project would expand the development area further into ESHA. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements ofthe MMC and LCP, inclusive of the discretionary requests. In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative location would offer any environmental advantages.

Proposed Project — Due to site constraints, ESHA requirements, and steep slopes, the building pad is limited. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated exterior site improvements compliant with hillside development standards. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is subject to hillside development standards and the applicant has reduced the proposed square footage to comply with those standards. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Enviromnental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the discretionary requests. Additionally, the proposed project was redesigned to eliminate the Variance for construction on steep slopes. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. The subject property is located within a designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. The ERB reviewed the project on August 24, 2022 and did not have associated recommendations. The ERB recommended the project move forward as proposed.

B. Variance Findings for Development in the ESHA buffer and Fuel Modification to Extend into the ESHA (LIP Section 13.26.5)

1. Exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel include ESHA and steep slopes. With the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, the entire property meets the definition of ESHA. Based on the submitted material, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, there are no other feasible alternative sites that exist that would avoid impacts on ESHA. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would preclude any development on the property. Adjacent properties are similarly developed and contain ESHA based on the LCP ESHA Map and denial of the variance would deprive the property owner of developing his property in a similar manner.
44 Resolution No 23-02

2. The City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and LACFD have reviewed the proposed project and determined it was consistent with all applicable safety, health or welfare regulations and policies.

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

3. The granting of the proposed variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation and will allow the property owner to develop the site consistent with neighboring properties. Therefore, granting the proposed variance does not constitute a special privilege to the property owner.

4. The proposed variance will allow the proposed residence, including related fuel modification, to extend into Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. This variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the zoning provisions nor LCP goals, objectives and policies as variances to ESHA protection standards may be granted pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A). The proposed project is consistent with the LCP as impacts to ESHA cannot be avoided and are offset in conformance with LIP Section 4.8.1. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator and City Public Works Department have determined the proposed project was consistent with the LCP and applicable goals and policies, inclusive of the proposed variances, and minor modification.

5. As previously discussed, the fuel modification for any building cannot avoid impacts to ESHA. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7, which states that ‘where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer, the City may only permit development as specified in Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4”. LIP Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 have been satisfied given the proposed development area (7,345-square feet) does not exceed 10,000 square feet, fencing is limited to the development area, and agricultural uses and confined animals are not included.

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

7. The proposed project consists of a new single-family residence and accessory uses on a previously developed site. The proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed development activities are consistent with specific ESHA protection standards. Therefore, the proposed variance would not authorize an unpermitted use or activity.

8. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that there are no alternate building sites or configurations which would eliminate the need for a variance because the fuel modification for a structure of any size would extend into surrounding Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA.

9. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. In addition to being consistent with the LCP, the proposed variance will comply with all requirements of State and local law in that the proposed project will be required to obtain applicable permits from the 45 Resolution No 23-02

Environmental Sustainability Department prior to construction. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

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

C. Site Plan Review for development on slopes steeper than 3:1, but flatter than 2.5:1 [LIP Section 13.271

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The property is located in a developed residential neighborhood and surrounding development consists of single-family residences, with accessory development. Adjacent development properties exhibit similar topography. Staff conducted an analysis of surrounding property characteristics in order to assess the project with regard to neighborhood character.

Neighboring properties were also constructed on similar slopes and feature development that blends into the surrounding topography. Therefore, the portions ofthe structure proposed on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

3. On January 3, 2023, staff visited the subject parcel after story poles representing the location and height of the proposed buildings were erected. Based on staff’s site visit, it was determined that while portions of the single-family residence are visible from Encinal Canyon Road, the project as designed is not anticipated to result in adverse scenic or visual impacts. Given the location and design of the project, intervening topography, existing development, and the implementation of conditions of approval for lighting, the project is not expected to create significant obstructions or encroachments into public views and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6. Therefore, the project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views.

4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies, such as the LACFD. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.

D. Minor Modification for a reduced front yard setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. As previously stated in Section A, Finding 1, the project has been reviewed and analyzed for conformance with the LCP. Additionally, the reduced front yard setback limits the impact to ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes. The project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The neighborhood is comprised of single-family residences on lots ofvarying sizes.

The single-family residence would be in character with surrounding residential development.

Based on observations during the site visit and inspection of the story poles, the proposed project, 46 Resolution No 23-02

as designed and conditioned, does not adversely affect neighborhood character. Additionally, given the constraints of the steep slopes to the north, the residence needed to be located within the front yard setback.

3. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4)

1. The fuel modification zone of a structure of any size on the subject parcel would disturb ESHA and the project as proposed has been sited as close as possible to Noranda Lane to minimize ESHA impacts. A residence and related fuel modification are not permitted uses in the applicable Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESI-IA. Therefore, the application of LIP Chapter 4 (ESHA overlay ordinance) would not allow construction of a residence on this undeveloped parcel.

2. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 1, the proposed project is consistent with all provisions of the LCP. As previously discussed in Section C, Finding 1, the subject parcel cannot be developed without disturbance of Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Because ESHA impacts could not be avoided, LIP Section 4.7.1 states the allowable development area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The proposed development area (7,345-square feet) is less than 10,000 square feet, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.7.1. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provision of LIP Section 4.7.

F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)

1. The project does not involve the removal of any native trees. No direct impacts to native trees are anticipated as a result of project construction based on the Native Tree Report prepared on November 17, 2017. Regardless, the project is conditioned to protect native trees during construction.

2. Based on the Native Tree Report, no removal of native trees is proposed. While no impacts are anticipated, the project is conditioned to protect native trees within or adjacent to the construction area.

3. Condition No. 23 has been added to protect the native protected trees during construction.

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

1. An analysis of the project’s potential visual impact was conducted through site inspections, story poles, and review of the architectural plans. The proposed project allows for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development. The project is designed to minimize visual impacts and meets the requirements of the hillside development standards.

Additionally, the proposed development is minimally visible from Encinal Canyon Road based on review ofthe story poles. It is not anticipated that the project will result in adverse scenic or visual impacts; therefore, the project is consistent with LIP Chapter 6. 47 Resolution No 23-02

2. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

3. As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, the project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impact. Therefore, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the revised project will not have significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

H. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports prepared by Calwest Geotechnical dated January 9, 2018, and October 5, 2017; reports prepared by Land Phases Inc. dated January 8, 2018 and September 9, 2017; and reports prepared by EPD Consultants dated September 27, 2017. The aforementioned reports are referenced in the geotechnical review sheet.

These reports are on file at City Hall. The reports evaluate site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area. Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts associated with these hazards to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

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

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Finding A3, there are no feasible alternatives.

5. As discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts on sensitive resources are anticipated.
48 Resolution No 23-02

I. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
The subject property is not located between the first public road and the sea or on a bluff; however, the property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Lateral Access — The project site is not located along the shore. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Vertical Access — The project site is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, and access to the Pacific Ocean is not possible. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Bluffiop Access — The project is not located on a blufftop, and therefore, no conditions for blufftop access are required.

Recreational Access — The project site is not adjacent to, does not include, nor contain any access ways to existing or planned recreational areas. Therefore, no conditions or findings for recreational access are required.

Trail Access — The LCP Parkiands Map shows the Coastal Slope Trail located on the northern portion of the property. No development will take place on or near the trail and therefore no impacts are expected. However, the property owner is proposing an offer-to-dedicate a trail easement.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 17-104, VAR Nos. 20-035, SPR No. 23-003 and MM No. 20-0 12 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,789-square foot, single-family residence;
b. 1,801-square foot basement and subterranean garage;
c. New OWTS;
d. New swimming pool and spa;
e. Associated pool equipment (to be fully screened);
f. New lower level decks;
49 Resolution No 23-02

g. New upper level deck;
h. 3,299-square feet of new landscaping;
i. New 25,000 gallon underground water tank;
j. New 5,000 gallon underground water tank;
k. 581 cubic yards of non-exempt grading;

1. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 19-035 for encroachment into ESHA;
ii. SPR No. 23-003 for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than2.5to 1;and
iii. MM No. 20-012 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped January 3, 2023. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs 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. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 6 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. This resolution, signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet ofthe development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check, and the City of Malibu Public Works Department for an encroachment permit (as applicable).

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

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

9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Enviromnental 50 Resolution No 23-02

Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, LACFD, and CSLC as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

11. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including 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 coastal development permit approved by the City is void.

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

Biology

13. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 108,671 gallons per year. The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 44,032 gpy, thus meeting the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

14. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife.

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

15. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7.1, the allowable development area is limited to 10,000 square feet as all feasible building areas will result in impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

16. Prior to final Planning inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.53.

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

17. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.8.1, all new development shall include mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) from the removal, conversion, or modification of natural habitat for new development, including required fuel 51 Resolution No 23-02

modification and brush clearance. The proposed project will result in 0.96 acres of permanent impacts (development footprint and/or Fuel Modification Zones A and/or B) and partial impacts (Fuel Modification Zone C). One of the following three Habitat Impact Mitigation methods shall be required: (1) habitat restoration; (2) habitat conservation; or (3) in-lieu fee for habitat conservation. The CDP shall include conditions setting forth the requirements for habitat mitigation. Prior to final plan check the applicant shall provide either a detailed restoration plan, a habitat conservation plan, or evidence of payment of in lieu fees to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

18. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

19. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

20. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner/applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

21. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

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

23. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

24. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

25. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.

26. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

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

31. If it becomes necessary to conduct earthmoving activities from November 1 through March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Biologist for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or earthrnoving activities.
52 Resolution No 23-02

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

29. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

30. Necessary boundary fencing shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

31. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (landscape and fuel modification plan). Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

32. Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

Environmental Health

33. Prior to Final OWTS Plot Plan: 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).

34. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: Ifthe OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planning stage review, then 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).

35. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
53 Resolution No 23-02

a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for Ipackage 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 percolationlinfiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

36. 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.

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

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

39. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note 54 Resolution No 23-02

only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

40. Prior to final Enviromnental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner ofthe subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion ofthe 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.

41. 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 Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. 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.

42. The City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

43. City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained

44. 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.

Geology

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

46. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff 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. 55 Resolution No 23-02

Grading/Drainage

47. 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:

Hydraulic Mulch
Hydroseeding
Soil Binders Erosion Controls Straw Mulch
Geotextiles and Mats
Wood Mulching
Fiber Rolls
Gravel Bag Berm
Street Sweeping and/ or Vacuum Sediment Controls Storm Drain Inlet Protection Scheduling
Check Darn
Wind Erosion Controls
Stabilized Construction Entrance/ Exit Additional Controls Stabilized Construction Roadway Entrance/ Exit Tire Wash
Vehicle and Equipment Washing
Non-Storm Water Management Vehicle and Equipment Fueling Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Material Delivery and Storage Waste Management Spill Prevention and Control 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.

48. 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.

49. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic 56 Resolution No 23-02

system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan;
e. If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan;
f. 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; g. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
h. 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.

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

51. A digital (Aut0CAD) ofthe project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post construction BMP’s 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 drains lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or Private Street and any drainage easements.

52. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including storrnwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the stormwater runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

53. 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.

The SWMP shall identi~i the site design and source control BMPs that have been 57 Resolution No 23-02

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.

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 predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP 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.

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

56. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit PDF of the final plans. Ifthere are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.

Fuel ModUIcatioiz

57. The project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan prior to the issuance of final building permits.
58 Resolution No 23-02

Colors and Materials

58. 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.

59. 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.

Swimming Pool/Spa

60. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

61. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section

3.5.3(A).

62. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall.

63. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pooi, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only ifthe following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach in to the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

64. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

65. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section 13.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
59 Resolution No 23-02

66. Pursuant to MMC Section 9.20.040(B), all ponds, decorative fountains shall require a water recirculating/recycling system.

Outdoor Lighting

67. 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 necessaly 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.

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

69. 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.

70. 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.

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

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

73. 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. ~oizstruction /Framing

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

75. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
60 Resolution No 23-02

76. 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.rn. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.

80. 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.

Deed Restrictions

81. 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 Planning department staff prior to final planning approval.

82. 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. 67-73.

The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning 61 Resolution No 23-02

Department prior to final Planning Department approval.

83. In order to implement the property owner’s proposal of an offer to dedicate a 10-foot easement for a public access hiking, biking, and equestrian trail easement for passive recreational use as part of this project, the property owner agrees to complete the following prior to final Planning Department approval: the property owner shall execute and record a document, in a form and content acceptable to the Planning Director and California Coastal Commission (CCC), irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency or private association approved by the CCC an easement for an easement for a public access hiking, biking, and equestrian trail easement for passive recreational use. The document shall provide that the offer of dedication shall not be used or construed to allow anyone, prior to acceptance of the offer, to interfere with any rights of public access acquired through use which may exist on the property. The document shall also provide that there shall be no gate(s) at the entrance to or exit from the easement. The offer shall provide the public the right to pass and re-pass over the dedicated route. The document shall be recorded free of prior liens which the Planning Director and/or CCC determines may affect the interest being conveyed, and free of any other encumbrances which may affect said interest. The offer shall run with the land in favor of the People of the State of California, binding all successors and assignees, and the offer shall be irrevocable for a period of 21 years, such period running from the date of recording. The recording document shall include a formal legal description and graphic depiction, prepared by a licensed surveyor, of both the property owner’s entire parcel and the easement area.

Fixed Conditions

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

85. 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.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 2023.

DENNIS R. SMITH, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
qi w . ~
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
62 Resolution No 23-02

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, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

Any action challenging the final decision ofthe City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.0 10 ofthe 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. 23-02 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting thereof held on the 6~ day of February 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: 3 Commissioners: Smith, Jennings, Peak
NOES: 2 Commissioners: Hill, Mazza
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
WA . ~.. LL~
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
63

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Jessica Thompson, Senior Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: January 26, 2023 Meeting date: February 6, 2023 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 17-104, Variance No. 19-035, Site Plan Review 23-003, Minor Modification No. 20-012, and Offer-toDedicate No. 23-001 – An application for a new single-family residence and exterior site improvements
Location: 3620 Noranda Lane, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4473-026-002
Owner: 3620 Noranda Lane, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-104 for the construction of a new single-family residence, a basement including a subterranean garage, a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), exterior site improvements including a new swimming pool, spa, deck, landscape, hardscape, and grading; including Variance (VAR) No. 19-035 to allow for development within the required Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23- 003 for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to 1, Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-012 for the reduction of the required front yard setback by up to 50 percent, and Offer-to-Dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement, for the property located in the Rural Residential-Five Acre (RR-5) zoning district at 3620 Noranda Lane (3620 Noranda Lane, LLC).

DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a project overview, a summary of the surrounding land uses and project setting, description of the proposed project, staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) provisions, and environmental review pursuant to Planning Commission
Meeting
02-06-23
Item

5.B.
64 Exhibit D

CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the proposed project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Project Overview
The subject parcel is an irregularly shaped vacant lot, similar to a trapezoid, located in a residentially developed hillside area (Figure 1). The parcel is zoned RR-5 and is approximately 2.8 acres in size. The parcel takes access from the north side of Noranda Lane, a private street.

According to the LCP ESHA map the parcel contains Chaparral ESHA. Residential development, including related fuel modification, is not a permitted activity in the applicable Chaparral ESHA and, therefore, Variance No. 19-035 from LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 4.5.3 is required. With the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, the entire property meets the definition of ESHA. Based on the submitted materials, including the Biological Assessment and site survey, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, there are no other feasible alternative sites that exists that would avoid impacts on ESHA. The proposed project Although the proposed development is sited on the flattest portion of the lot, within the previously existing building pad, the majority of the lot consists of steep slopes. Although the footprint has been reduced, a portion of the proposed development is sited on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to 1, Therefore, the applicant is requesting SPR No. 23-003 to allow for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to

1. Additionally, the accessory development has been re-sited to avoid construction on variant slopes.

In addition to the variance for encroachment into ESHA and site plan review construction on steep slopes, the applicant is requesting MM No. 20-012 for 50 percent reduction in the required front yard setback from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet. The minor modification reduces the development area within ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes.

Project Chronology
On November 8, 2017, an application for CDP No. 17-104 for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Department and routed to the City departments and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for conformance review.

On November 19, 2019, the application was deemed complete. 65

On October 22, 2020, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

On November 16, 2020, the subject item was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore re-design options to avoid construction on 1 to 1 slopes.

On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and denied the project due to the inability to make the variance findings for construction on steep slopes for the proposed swimming pool. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution for denial.

On April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-30 denying CDP No. 17-104.

On April 26, 2021, the applicant, Vitus Matare, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project.

On June 1, 2021, the applicant emailed staff requesting the project be remanded back to the Planning Commission for a redesign.

On July 12, 2021, the City Council remanded CDP No. 17-104 back to the Planning Commission.

On August 3, 2021, the applicant submitted revised plans, including a reduced footprint for the single-family residence and an updated Biological Assessment for conformance review by City departments. The applicant provided a memorandum detailing the proposed changes from the previously proposed project (Attachment 4 – Applicant Memorandum dated January 5, 2023).

On November 16, 2021, the City Biologist determined that Environmental Review Board (ERB) was required for the project. The project previously did not require ERB because the project was determined to be exempt under LIP Section 4.4.4(D). However, upon further review staff could not find a permit for the previously existing residence and the City Biologist determined the subject application required ERB. 66

On July 29, 2022, the revised project was deemed complete. The project revisions included reducing the size of the single-family residence, reducing the development area and eliminating the variance for construction on steep slopes.

On August 24, 2022, the revised project was reviewed by the ERB and the determinations are included within the staff report.

The subject parcel is not located within the Appeal Jurisdiction as depicted on the PostLCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map and as shown in Figure 1.

Therefore, the proposed project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Figure 1 – Aerial Map
Source: City GIS 2022
Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
The property is located in an area zoned RR-5. The subject site is bordered to the north by a vacant lot outside of the City’s boundary, to the east by a vacant lot, and the west Project Location
ESHA
Appeal
Jurisdiction
67

and south by single-family residential development. Table 1 provides a summary of the neighboring surrounding land uses and lot sizes.

Source: City GIS 2020
Table 2 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area of the subject parcel.

Table 2 – Total Property Data
Lot Depth 459 feet, 3 inches
Lot Width 247 feet, 3 inches
Gross Lot Area 122,404 square feet
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes 10,238 square feet
Area Comprised of Access Easements 7,841 square feet
Net Lot Area* 104,325 square feet
*Net Lot Area = Gross Lot Area minus the area of access easements and 1 to 1 slopes.

Environmental Review Board
The proposed project was presented to the ERB at its August 24, 2022, meeting. The project was reviewed by the ERB and the ERB did not provide recommendations for the Planning Commission’s consideration and recommended the project as proposed.

Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows:
a. 4,789-square foot, single-family residence;
b. 1,801-square foot basement and subterranean garage;
c. New OWTS;
d. New swimming pool and spa;
e. Associated pool equipment (to be fully screened);
f. New lower-level decks;
g. New upper-level deck;
h. 3,299-square feet of new landscaping;
i. New 25,000-gallon underground water tank;
j. New 5,000-gallon underground water tank;
k. 432 cubic yards of non-exempt grading;
Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Address Lot Size Zoning Land Use
North 3565 Encinal Canyon
Road 6.12 acres N/A Vacant
South 3655 Noranda Lane 5.04 acres RR-5 Single-Family Residence West 3640 Noranda Lane 9.18 acres RR-5 Single-Family Residence East APN 4473-026-003 10.6 acres RR-5 Vacant
68

l. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 19-035 for encroachment into ESHA;
ii. SPR No. 23-003 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than

2.5 to 1; and
iii. MM No. 20-012 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet.

Hillside Residential Development
Hillside residential development standards pursuant to MMC Sections 17.40.040(A)(20) and 17.62.070 apply to residential development inland of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), when the proposed development area1 is located on slopes steeper than 30 percent. The proposed project is unable to locate the development in an area that would not make it subject to hillside standards given the topography of the site and required access.

Development subject to hillside residential standards shall reduce the maximum Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) by 25 percent and have a maximum height limit of 35 feet as measured from the lowest low point to the highest high point of each structure.

The proposed development complies with both the reduced TDSF and maximum height limit of 35 feet.

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

There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no 1 “Proposed Development Area” is defined as the proposed portion of a project site that will be developed, including the building pad and all graded slopes, all structures, and parking areas. The area of one proposed access driveway or roadway not to exceed twenty feet wide, and one proposed hammerhead or safety turnaround, as required by the LA County Fire Department not located within the approved building pad, shall be excluded from the total proposed development area.

Table 3 – Hillside Development Standards
Development Requirement Allowed/Required Proposed Comments TDSF (sq. ft.) 8,902 – 25% (2,225)
= 6,677 sq. ft. 5,189 sq. ft. Complies
OVERALL HEIGHT (ft.) (lowest
to highest structure elevation) 35 ft. 35 ft. Complies
69

findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) OWTS. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section.

The nine remaining LIP chapters contain required findings: 1) Coastal Development Permit; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division. For the reasons described in this report, including the project site, the scope of work and substantial evidence in the record, only findings in the following chapters are applicable to the proposed project: Coastal Development Permit including the variance, site plan review and minor modification findings, ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection, Hazards, and Public Access.
2 These chapters are discussed in the LIP Findings section of this report.

LIP Conformance Analysis
The proposed project has been reviewed by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and the LACFD (Attachment 3 – Department Review Sheets). The project, as proposed and conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies inclusive of the requested variance, site plan review and minor modification.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The proposed project is subject to development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Table 4 provides a summary and indicates the proposed project meets those standards.

Table 4 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments
SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard (20% or 65 ft.,
whichever is less) 65 ft. 32 ft., 6 in. MM No. 20-012
Rear Yard 69 ft. 186 ft., 7 in. Complies
Side Yard (10% - Min) 23 ft., 9 in. 45 ft. Complies
Side Yard (15% - Cumulative)
35 ft., 8 in. 170 ft. Complies
2 The Transfer of Development Credits, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Public Access, and Land Division findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed project. 70

Table 4 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments
ESHA SETBACK 200 ft.
fuel modification
0 ft. VAR No. 19-035

PARKING
Enclosed 2 2 Complies
Unenclosed 2 2 Complies

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF)-
Hillside Development
Standards
6,677 sq. ft. 5,189 sq. ft. Complies
DEVELOPMENT AREA 10,000 sq. ft. 7,345 sq. ft. Complies
IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE 25,000 sq. ft. 5,990 sq. ft. Complies HEIGHT (ft.) 18 ft. 18 ft. Complies
SITE OF CONSTRUCTION < 3:1 >3:1 but flatter
than 2.5 to 1 SPR No. 23-003
NON-EXEMPT GRADING < 1,000 cubic
yards
432 cubic
yards
Complies

FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES/
GATES
Front Yard 6 ft.; lower 42 in.
view impermeable
None
Proposed Complies
Rear Yard 6 ft. None
Proposed Complies
Side Yards
6 ft.

None
Proposed Complies
Retaining Walls 6 ft. 6 ft. Complies
As shown in Table 4, the proposed project, inclusive of the requested discretionary requests, conforms to the development standards as set forth under LIP Chapter 3.

Further, the proposed project is also consistent with the City’s Hillside Development standards. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies.

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a 71

maximum of 1,000 cubic yards for a residential parcel. The project proposes 432 cubic yards of non-exempt grading. All grading quantities are summarized in Table 5. The proposed project complies with grading requirements set forth under LIP Section 8.3.

Table 5 – LCP Grading Conformance
Exempt* NonExempt Remedial Total R&R** Understructure Safety*** Cut 0 1,919 0 579 0 2,498
Fill 0 3 0 2 0 5
Total 0 1,922 0 581 0 2,503
Import 0 0 0 0 0 0
Export 0 1,916 0 577 0 2,493
All grading quantities indicated are in cubic yards (c.y.) * Exempt grading includes all R&R, understructure and safety grading. ** R&R= Removal and Re-compaction
***Safety grading is the incremental grading required for fire department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads and turnarounds and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department).

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. The project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources per the adopted City of Malibu Cultural Resources Map. An initial evaluation of the property for archaeological resources was completed in 2006 by Robert J. Wlodarski of Historical, Environmental, Archaeological, Research Team (H.E.A.R.T.).

No cultural resources were observed and the report indicated that no impacts to cultural resources were anticipated.

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

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements. Standard conditions of approval include the implementation of approved stormwater management plans during construction activities and to manage runoff from the development, including recordation of a water quality mitigation plan, and best management practices. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.
72

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The proposed project allows for a new 3,634-gallon MicroSepTec tank with Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit, two new seepage pits and two seepage pits for future dedication. Details are provided in the Environmental Health review sheet and approved plot plan in Attachment 3. The system has been reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator and found to meet the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP. Conditions of approval have been included in this resolution, which require continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of onsite facilities.

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

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

The proposed project is located in the RR-5 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the proposed discretionary requests.

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

The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. The property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected. Additionally, the property owner has proposed offer-to-dedicate (OTD) No. 23- 001 for a trail easement along the westerly property line following Noranda Lane.

Therefore, no potential project-related or cumulative impact on public access and/or recreation is anticipated to result from the proposed project. The proposed project conforms to the public access and recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). 73

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

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

1. Smaller Project – A smaller residence could be proposed on the project site.

However, reducing the size of the residence would not significantly reduce impacts to public or private views. Should the footprint be reduced, the direct land disturbance of construction would be reduced. However, a smaller project would not eliminate the need for an ESHA variance or the site plan review for construction on steep slopes. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable non-exempt grading, TDSF for hillside development, impermeable coverage and the height limitations of the LCP and the MMC.

2. Alternative Location – The proposed single-family residence could be relocated further to the north on the subject parcel to eliminate the MM request for the reduction of the front yard setback. However, most of the parcel to the north of the proposed building pad consists of steep slopes. Relocating the proposed development, would require more grading, land disturbance and further construction on steep slopes. Additionally, relocating the proposed project would expand the development area further into ESHA. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the MMC and LCP, inclusive of the discretionary requests.

In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative location would offer any environmental advantages.

3. Proposed Project – Due to site constraints, ESHA requirements, and steep slopes, the building pad is limited. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated exterior site improvements compliant with hillside development standards. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is subject to the hillside development standards and the applicant has reduced the proposed square footage to comply with those standards. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the discretionary requests. Additionally, the proposed project was redesigned to eliminate the Variance for construction on steep slopes. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

Finding 4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform 74

with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The subject property is located within a designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. The ERB reviewed the project on August 24, 2022, and did not have associated recommendations. The ERB recommended the project move forward as proposed.

B. Variance for Development in the ESHA buffer and Fuel Modification to Extend into ESHA (LIP Section 13.26.5)
The subject site is located entirely within ESHA, and it is not possible to develop the site and provide the required fuel modification without impacting ESHA. A variance is included to allow the proposed residential development including the required fuel modification to be located within the required 100-foot ESHA buffer for the onsite Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Pursuant to LIP Sections 4.5.3, 4.6.1(E) and 4.6.1(F), new development, including fuel modification, is not a permitted use in ESHA and residential development is not permitted within 100 feet of Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA; therefore, a variance is required. LIP Section 13.26.5 requires that the City makes ten findings in consideration and approval of a variance. Based on the foregoing evidence contained within the record, the required findings for VAR No. 19-035 are made as follows.

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

Exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel include ESHA and steep slopes. With the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, the entire property meets the definition of ESHA. Based on the submitted materials, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, there are no other feasible alternative sites that exist that would avoid impacts on ESHA. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would preclude any development on the property. Thus, the proposed variance would permit the construction of a single-family residence a on a lot that is zoned to permit rural residential land uses. Adjacent properties are similarly developed and contain ESHA based on the LCP ESHA Map and denial of the variance would deprive the property owner of developing his property in a similar manner.

Finding 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located. 75

The City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and LACFD have reviewed the proposed project and determined it was consistent with all applicable safety, health or welfare regulations and policies. The granting of the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

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

The granting of the proposed variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation and will allow the property owner to develop the site consistent with neighboring properties. Therefore, granting the proposed variance does not constitute a special privilege to the property owner.

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

The proposed variance will allow the proposed residence, including related fuel modification, to extend into Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. This variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the zoning provisions nor LCP goals, objectives and policies as variances to ESHA protection standards may be granted pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A). The proposed project is consistent with the LCP as impacts to ESHA cannot be avoided and are offset in conformance with LIP Section 4.8.1. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator and City Public Works Department have determined the proposed project was consistent with the LCP and applicable goals and policies, inclusive of the proposed variances, and minor modification.

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

As previously discussed, the fuel modification for any building cannot avoid impacts to ESHA. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7, which states that "where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer, the City may only permit development as specified in Sections

4.7.1 through 4.7.4". LIP Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 have been satisfied given the proposed development area (7,345-square feet) does not exceed 10,000 square feet, fencing is limited to the development area, and agricultural uses and confined animals are not included.
76

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

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

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

The proposed project consists of a new single-family residence and accessory uses on a previously developed site. The proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed development activities are consistent with specific ESHA protection standards. Therefore, the proposed variance would not authorize an unpermitted use or activity.

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

The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that there are no alternate building sites or configurations which would eliminate the need for a variance because the fuel modification for a structure of any size would extend into surrounding Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA.

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

The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. In addition to being consistent with the LCP, the proposed variance will comply with all requirements of State and local law in that the proposed project will be required to obtain applicable permits from the Environmental Sustainability Department prior to construction. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

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

The proposed project does not include or encroach upon public parking or recreation access. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
77

C. Site Plan Review No. 23-003 for development on slopes steeper than 3:1, but flatter than 2.5:1 [LIP Section 13.27]
Pursuant to LIP Section 3.6.(J), structures may be constructed on slopes greater than 3:1 but less than 2 1/2:1 subject to the provisions of LIP Section 13.27 (Site Plan Review). LIP Section 13.27.5(A) requires that the City make four findings in consideration and approval of a site plan review. Based on the foregoing evidence contained in the record, the required findings for SPR No. 23-003 are made as follows:

Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

The property is located in a developed residential neighborhood and surrounding development consists of single-family residences, with accessory development. Adjacent development properties exhibit similar topography.

Staff conducted an analysis of surrounding property characteristics in order to assess the project with regard to neighborhood character. Neighboring properties were also constructed on similar slopes and feature development that blends into the surrounding topography. Therefore, the portions of the structure proposed on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP.

On January 3, 2023, staff visited the subject parcel after story poles representing the location and height of the proposed buildings were erected. Based on staff’s site visit, it was determined that while portions of the single-family residence are visible from Encinal Canyon Road, the project as designed is not anticipated to result in adverse scenic or visual impacts. Given the location and design of the project, intervening topography, existing development, and the implementation of conditions of approval for lighting, the project is not expected to create significant obstructions or encroachments into public views and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6. Therefore, the project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views.
78

Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies, such as the LACFD. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.

D. Minor Modification for a reduced front yard setback (LIP Section 13.27) LIP Section 13.27 requires that the City make three findings in consideration and approval of a minor modification to reduce the required front yard setback up to 50 percent. The project proposes a 50 percent reduction in the required front yard setback to allow for a

32.5-foot setback where 65 feet is required.

Finding 1. The project is consistent with the policies of the Malibu LCP.

As previously stated in Section A, Finding 1, the project has been reviewed and analyzed for conformance with the LCP. Additionally, the reduced front yard setback limits the impact to ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes. The project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

The neighborhood is comprised of single-family residences on lots of varying sizes. The single-family residence would be in character with surrounding residential development.

Based on observations during the site visit and inspection of the story poles, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

Additionally, given the constraints of the steep slopes to the north, the residence needed to be located within the front yard setback.

Finding 3. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As previously discussed, according to the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, the parcel contains Chaparral ESHA. Residential development, including related fuel 79

modification, is not a permitted activity in the applicable Chaparral ESHA. Therefore, the supplemental ESHA findings in LIP Section 4.7.6 are made as follows.

Finding 1. Application of the ESHA overlay ordinance would not allow construction of a residence on an undeveloped parcel.

The fuel modification zone of a structure of any size on the subject parcel would disturb ESHA and the project as proposed has been sited as close as possible to Noranda Lane to minimize ESHA impacts. A residence and related fuel modification are not permitted uses in the applicable Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Therefore, the application of LIP Chapter 4 (ESHA overlay ordinance) would not allow construction of a residence on this undeveloped parcel.

Finding 2. The project is consistent with all provisions of the certified LCP with the exception of the ESHA overlay ordinance and it complies with the provisions of Section

4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 1, the proposed project is consistent with all provisions of the LCP. As previously discussed in Section C, Finding 1, the subject parcel cannot be developed without disturbance of Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA.

Because ESHA impacts could not be avoided, LIP Section 4.7.1 states the allowable development area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The proposed development area (7,345-square feet) is less than 10,000 square feet, which is consistent with LIP Section

4.7.1. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provision of LIP Section 4.7.

F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
The provisions of the Native Tree Protection Chapter apply to those areas containing one or more native Oak, California Walnut, Western Sycamore, Alder or Toyon trees that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, 4½ feet from the ground. A Native Tree Report prepared by Greg Ainsworth on November 17, 2017, identified five native trees within fifty feet of the residence. No trees are proposed to be removed, and tree protection measures are included in the conditions of approval to ensure that construction does not encroach within the protected zone of any protected native all trees.

A coastal development permit that includes the removal of one or more native tree(s) and/or the encroachment of development within the protected zone of one or more native tree(s) may be approved or conditionally approved only if the following findings can be made:

Finding 1. The proposed project is sited and designed to minimize removal of or encroachment in the protected zone of native trees to the maximum extent feasible. 80

The project does not involve the removal of any native trees. No direct impacts to native trees are anticipated as a result of project construction based on the Native Tree Report prepared on November 17, 2017. Regardless, the project is conditioned to protect native trees during construction.

Finding 2. The adverse impact of tree removal and/or encroachment cannot be avoided because there is no other feasible alternative.

Based on the Native Tree Report, no removal of native trees is proposed. While no impacts are anticipated, the project is conditioned to protect native trees within or adjacent to the construction area.

Finding 3. All feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant impact on native trees have been incorporated into the approved project through design or conditions of approval.

Condition No. 23 has been added to Resolution No. 22-03 to protect the native protected trees during construction.

G. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. The subject property is located above Encinal Canyon Road, which is considered a scenic road pursuant to LUP Chapter 6, Section C.6.2. Since the project is located adjacent to a scenic resource and on a scenic road, the findings set forth in LIP Section

6.4 are enumerated herein.

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

An analysis of the project’s potential visual impact was conducted through site inspections, story poles, and review of the architectural plans. The proposed project allows for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development. The project is designed to minimize visual impacts and meets the requirements of the hillside development standards. Additionally, the proposed development is minimally visible from Encinal Canyon Road based on review of the story poles. It is not anticipated that the project will result in adverse scenic or visual impacts; therefore, the project is consistent with LIP Chapter 6.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions. 81

As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, as conditioned, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

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

As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

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

As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, the project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impact. Therefore, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

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

As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, as conditioned, development on the site will not have significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

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

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

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

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff and LACFD. The required findings are made as follows:
82

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

The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports prepared by Calwest Geotechnical dated January 9, 2018, and October 5, 2017; reports prepared by Land Phases Inc. dated January 8, 2018, and September 9, 2017; and reports prepared by EPD Consultants dated September 27, 2017. The aforementioned reports are referenced in the geotechnical review sheet in Attachment 3. These reports are on file at City Hall. The reports evaluate site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area. Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts associated with these hazards to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards.

In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

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

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards.

The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an adverse impact on wildfire hazards as it will be conditioned to meet all LACFD requirements.

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

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
83

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

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

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

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Finding A3, there are no feasible alternatives.

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

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

J. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
LIP Chapter 10 applies to land that is located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff-top fronting the shoreline. The proposed project is not located near the shore.

Therefore, LIP Chapter 10 findings do not apply.

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

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

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

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

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.
84

The subject property is not located between the first public road and the sea or on a bluff; however, the property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Lateral Access – The project site is not located along the shore. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Vertical Access – The project site is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, and access to the Pacific Ocean is not possible. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Blufftop Access – The project is not located on a blufftop, and therefore, no conditions for blufftop access are required.

Recreational Access – The project site is not adjacent to, does not include, nor contain any access ways to existing or planned recreational areas. Therefore, no conditions or findings for recreational access are required.

Trail Access – The LCP Parklands Map shows the Coastal Slope Trail located on the northern portion of the property. However, no development will take place on or near the trail and therefore no impacts are expected. Additionally, the property owner has proposed offer-to-dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement along the westerly property line following Noranda Lane.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15303(e) - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

CORRESPONDENCE: To date, staff has received no correspondence regarding the revised design of the project. However, correspondence was submitted prior to the last public hearing pertaining to the previous design and is attached to the previous staff report (Attachment 9).
85

PUBLIC NOTICE: On January 12 2023, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 7).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-02

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Applicant Memorandum dated January 5, 2023

5. Story Pole Photographs dated January 5, 2023

6. Construction Management Plan

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. November 16, 2020, Planning Commission Agenda Report Item No. 5.D. – https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4602?fileID=17707

9. March 15, 2021, Planning Commission Agenda Report Item No. 5.C. – https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/4806?fileID=19411

10. July 12, 2021, City Council Agenda Report Item No. 4.D. to remand back to the Planning Commission –
https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/5045?fileID=23036 86 ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17-104, VARIANCE NO. 19-035, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012, AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-001, FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A BASEMENT

INCLUDING A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE, A NEW ONSITE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, EXTERIOR SITE

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A NEW SWIMMING POOL, SPA, DECK,
LANDSCAPE, HARDSCAPE AND GRADING; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 19-035 TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA BUFFER, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-003 FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1, BUT FLATTER THAN 2.5 TO 1, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 20-012

FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BY UP TO 50 PERCENT AND OFFER-TO-DEDICATE NO. 23-001 FOR A TRAIL

EASEMENT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RURAL
RESIDENTIAL-FIVE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 3620 NORANDA LANE (3620 NORANDA LANE, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On November 8, 2017, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 17-104 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development, was submitted to the Planning Department by Vitus Matare. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review.

B. On November 19, 2019, the application was deemed complete.

C. On November 27, 2019, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

D. On October 8, 2020, 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.

E. On October 22, 2020, a revised Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On November 2, 2020, the subject item was continued to the November 16, 2020 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
87 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
G. On November 16, 2020, the subject item was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore re-design options to avoid construction on one to one slopes.

H. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record and denied the project due to the inability to make the variance findings for construction of accessory development on steep slopes. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution for denial.

J. On April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 21-30 denying CDP No. 17-104.

K. On April 26, 2021, the applicant, Vitus Matare, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project.

L. On June 17, 2021, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On July 12, 2021, the City Council remanded CDP No. 17-104 back to the Planning Commission.

N. On August 24, 2022, the revised project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

O. On December 22, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

P. January 12, 2023, 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 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties.

Q. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The proposed project did not require a variance for construction on steep slopes but required a site plan review.

R. On February 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act 88 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
(CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Section 153030 (a) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 15303 (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and 15304 (b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) local implementation plan (LIP) Sections 13.7(b) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 17-104, VAR No. 19-035, SPR No. 23-003 and MM No. 20-012 to allow for construction of a new single-family residence and associated development, located in the Rural Residential-Five Acre zoning district at 3620 Noranda Lane.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system requirements. 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 staff, City Public Works Department, and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the discretionary requests.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. The property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Additionally, the property owner has proposed offer-to-dedicate (OTD) No. 23-001 for a trail easement along the westerly property line following Noranda Lane. Therefore, no potential project-related or cumulative impact on public access and/or recreation is anticipated to result from the proposed project. The proposed project conforms to the public access and recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

3. This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the proposed project would significantly lessen adverse impacts on coastal resources. 89 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
Smaller Project – A smaller residence could be proposed on the project site. However, reducing the size of the residence would not significantly reduce impacts to public or private views. Should the footprint be reduced, the direct land disturbance of construction would be reduced. However, a smaller project would not eliminate the need for an ESHA variance or the site plan review for construction on steep slopes. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable non-exempt grading, TDSF for hillside development, impermeable coverage and the height limitations of the LCP and the MMC.

Alternative Location – The proposed single-family residence could be relocated further to the north on the subject parcel to eliminate the MM request for the reduction of the front yard setback.

However, most of the parcel to the north of the proposed building pad consists of steep slopes.

Relocating the proposed development, would require more grading, land disturbance and further construction on steep slopes. Additionally, relocating the proposed project would expand the development area further into ESHA. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the MMC and LCP, inclusive of the discretionary requests. In conclusion, it is not anticipated that an alternative location would offer any environmental advantages.

Proposed Project – Due to site constraints, ESHA requirements, and steep slopes, the building pad is limited. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated exterior site improvements compliant with hillside development standards. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is subject to hillside development standards and the applicant has reduced the proposed square footage to comply with those standards. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and the LACFD, and meets the City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the discretionary requests. Additionally, the proposed project was redesigned to eliminate the Variance for construction on steep slopes. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. The subject property is located within a designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. The ERB reviewed the project on August 24, 2022 and did not have associated recommendations. The ERB recommended the project move forward as proposed.

B. Variance Findings for Development in the ESHA buffer and Fuel Modification to Extend into the ESHA (LIP Section 13.26.5)

1. Exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel include ESHA and steep slopes. With the exception of a previously disturbed building pad, the entire property meets the definition of ESHA. Based on the submitted material, the required 200-foot fuel modification buffer that is required for any building would extend into ESHA. Given that the parcel is mostly mapped as containing ESHA, there are no other feasible alternative sites that exist that would avoid impacts on ESHA. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would preclude any development on the property. Adjacent properties are similarly developed and contain ESHA based on the LCP ESHA Map and denial of the variance would deprive the property owner of developing his property in a similar manner.
90 Resolution No 23-02

______________________

2. The City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and LACFD have reviewed the proposed project and determined it was consistent with all applicable safety, health or welfare regulations and policies.

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

3. The granting of the proposed variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation and will allow the property owner to develop the site consistent with neighboring properties. Therefore, granting the proposed variance does not constitute a special privilege to the property owner.

4. The proposed variance will allow the proposed residence, including related fuel modification, to extend into Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. This variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the zoning provisions nor LCP goals, objectives and policies as variances to ESHA protection standards may be granted pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A). The proposed project is consistent with the LCP as impacts to ESHA cannot be avoided and are offset in conformance with LIP Section 4.8.1. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator and City Public Works Department have determined the proposed project was consistent with the LCP and applicable goals and policies, inclusive of the proposed variances, and minor modification.

5. As previously discussed, the fuel modification for any building cannot avoid impacts to ESHA. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7, which states that "where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer, the City may only permit development as specified in Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4". LIP Sections 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 have been satisfied given the proposed development area (7,345-square feet) does not exceed 10,000 square feet, fencing is limited to the development area, and agricultural uses and confined animals are not included.

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

7. The proposed project consists of a new single-family residence and accessory uses on a previously developed site. The proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed development activities are consistent with specific ESHA protection standards. Therefore, the proposed variance would not authorize an unpermitted use or activity.

8. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that there are no alternate building sites or configurations which would eliminate the need for a variance because the fuel modification for a structure of any size would extend into surrounding Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA.

9. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. In addition to being consistent with the LCP, the proposed variance will comply with all requirements of State and local law in that the proposed project will be required to obtain applicable permits from the 91 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
Environmental Sustainability Department prior to construction. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

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

C. Site Plan Review for development on slopes steeper than 3:1, but flatter than 2.5:1 [LIP Section 13.27]

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The property is located in a developed residential neighborhood and surrounding development consists of single-family residences, with accessory development. Adjacent development properties exhibit similar topography. Staff conducted an analysis of surrounding property characteristics in order to assess the project with regard to neighborhood character.

Neighboring properties were also constructed on similar slopes and feature development that blends into the surrounding topography. Therefore, the portions of the structure proposed on slopes between 3 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

3. On January 3, 2023, staff visited the subject parcel after story poles representing the location and height of the proposed buildings were erected. Based on staff’s site visit, it was determined that while portions of the single-family residence are visible from Encinal Canyon Road, the project as designed is not anticipated to result in adverse scenic or visual impacts. Given the location and design of the project, intervening topography, existing development, and the implementation of conditions of approval for lighting, the project is not expected to create significant obstructions or encroachments into public views and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6. Therefore, the project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views.

4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies, such as the LACFD. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and project consultants.

D. Minor Modification for a reduced front yard setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. As previously stated in Section A, Finding 1, the project has been reviewed and analyzed for conformance with the LCP. Additionally, the reduced front yard setback limits the impact to ESHA and reduces the construction on steep slopes. The project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC.

2. The neighborhood is comprised of single-family residences on lots of varying sizes.

The single-family residence would be in character with surrounding residential development.

Based on observations during the site visit and inspection of the story poles, the proposed project, 92 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
as designed and conditioned, does not adversely affect neighborhood character. Additionally, given the constraints of the steep slopes to the north, the residence needed to be located within the front yard setback.

3. The City Biologist, City geotechnical staff, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACFD reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

E. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4)

1. The fuel modification zone of a structure of any size on the subject parcel would disturb ESHA and the project as proposed has been sited as close as possible to Noranda Lane to minimize ESHA impacts. A residence and related fuel modification are not permitted uses in the applicable Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Therefore, the application of LIP Chapter 4 (ESHA overlay ordinance) would not allow construction of a residence on this undeveloped parcel.

2. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 1, the proposed project is consistent with all provisions of the LCP. As previously discussed in Section C, Finding 1, the subject parcel cannot be developed without disturbance of Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Because ESHA impacts could not be avoided, LIP Section 4.7.1 states the allowable development area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The proposed development area (7,345-square feet) is less than 10,000 square feet, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.7.1. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provision of LIP Section 4.7.

F. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)

1. The project does not involve the removal of any native trees. No direct impacts to native trees are anticipated as a result of project construction based on the Native Tree Report prepared on November 17, 2017. Regardless, the project is conditioned to protect native trees during construction.

2. Based on the Native Tree Report, no removal of native trees is proposed. While no impacts are anticipated, the project is conditioned to protect native trees within or adjacent to the construction area.

3. Condition No. 23 has been added to protect the native protected trees during construction.

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

1. An analysis of the project’s potential visual impact was conducted through site inspections, story poles, and review of the architectural plans. The proposed project allows for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development. The project is designed to minimize visual impacts and meets the requirements of the hillside development standards.

Additionally, the proposed development is minimally visible from Encinal Canyon Road based on review of the story poles. It is not anticipated that the project will result in adverse scenic or visual impacts; therefore, the project is consistent with LIP Chapter 6. 93 Resolution No 23-02

______________________

2. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

3. As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

4. As discussed in Section G, Finding 1, the project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impact. Therefore, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. As discussed in Finding 1, as conditioned, the revised project will not have significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

H. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports prepared by Calwest Geotechnical dated January 9, 2018, and October 5, 2017; reports prepared by Land Phases Inc. dated January 8, 2018 and September 9, 2017; and reports prepared by EPD Consultants dated September 27, 2017. The aforementioned reports are referenced in the geotechnical review sheet.

These reports are on file at City Hall. The reports evaluate site-specific conditions and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area. Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts associated with these hazards to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

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

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, and LACFD. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Finding A3, there are no feasible alternatives.

5. As discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts on sensitive resources are anticipated.
94 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
I. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
The subject property is not located between the first public road and the sea or on a bluff; however, the property does contain an LCP mapped trail on the northern portion of the property. However, no development is proposed on or near the mapped trail and therefore no impacts are expected.

Lateral Access – The project site is not located along the shore. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Vertical Access – The project site is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, and access to the Pacific Ocean is not possible. Therefore, no conditions or findings for lateral access are required.

Blufftop Access – The project is not located on a blufftop, and therefore, no conditions for blufftop access are required.

Recreational Access – The project site is not adjacent to, does not include, nor contain any access ways to existing or planned recreational areas. Therefore, no conditions or findings for recreational access are required.

Trail Access – The LCP Parklands Map shows the Coastal Slope Trail located on the northern portion of the property. No development will take place on or near the trail and therefore no impacts are expected. However, the property owner is proposing an offer-to-dedicate a trail easement.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 17-104, VAR Nos. 20-035, SPR No. 23-003 and MM No. 20-012 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,789-square foot, single-family residence;
b. 1,801-square foot basement and subterranean garage;
c. New OWTS;
d. New swimming pool and spa;
e. Associated pool equipment (to be fully screened);
f. New lower level decks;
95 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
g. New upper level deck;
h. 3,299-square feet of new landscaping;
i. New 25,000 gallon underground water tank;
j. New 5,000 gallon underground water tank;
k. 581 cubic yards of non-exempt grading;
l. Discretionary Requests:
i. VAR No. 19-035 for encroachment into ESHA;
ii. SPR No. 23-003 for development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, but flatter than 2.5 to 1; and
iii. MM No. 20-012 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent from the required 65 feet to 32.5 feet.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped January 3, 2023. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs 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. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 6 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

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

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

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

9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental 96 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, LACFD, and CSLC as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

11. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including 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 coastal development permit approved by the City is void.

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

Biology

13. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 108,671 gallons per year. The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 44,032 gpy, thus meeting the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

14. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife.

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

15. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.7.1, the allowable development area is limited to 10,000 square feet as all feasible building areas will result in impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

16. Prior to final Planning inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.53.

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

17. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.8.1, all new development shall include mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) from the removal, conversion, or modification of natural habitat for new development, including required fuel 97 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
modification and brush clearance. The proposed project will result in 0.96 acres of permanent impacts (development footprint and/or Fuel Modification Zones A and/or B) and partial impacts (Fuel Modification Zone C). One of the following three Habitat Impact Mitigation methods shall be required: (1) habitat restoration; (2) habitat conservation; or (3) in-lieu fee for habitat conservation. The CDP shall include conditions setting forth the requirements for habitat mitigation. Prior to final plan check the applicant shall provide either a detailed restoration plan, a habitat conservation plan, or evidence of payment of in lieu fees to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

18. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

19. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

20. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

21. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

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

23. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

24. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

25. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.

26. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

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

31. If it becomes necessary to conduct earthmoving activities from November 1 through March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Biologist for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or earthmoving activities.
98 Resolution No 23-02

______________________

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

29. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

30. Necessary boundary fencing shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

31. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (landscape and fuel modification plan). Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

32. Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

Environmental Health

33. Prior to Final OWTS Plot Plan: 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).

34. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then 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).

35. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
99 Resolution No 23-02

______________________
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

36. 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.

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

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

39. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note 100
Resolution No 23-02

______________________
only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

40. 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.

41. 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 Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. 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.

42. The City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

43. City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained

44. 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.

Geology

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

46. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff 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. 101
Resolution No 23-02

______________________
Grading/ Drainage

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

Erosion Controls
Hydraulic Mulch
Hydroseeding
Soil Binders
Straw Mulch
Geotextiles and Mats
Wood Mulching
Sediment Controls
Fiber Rolls
Gravel Bag Berm
Street Sweeping and/ or Vacuum
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Scheduling
Check Dam
Additional Controls
Wind Erosion Controls
Stabilized Construction Entrance/ Exit
Stabilized Construction Roadway
Entrance/ Exit Tire Wash
Non-Storm Water Management
Vehicle and Equipment Washing
Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Spill Prevention and Control
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.

48. 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.

49. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic 102
Resolution No 23-02

______________________
system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan;
e. If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan;
f. 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; g. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
h. 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.

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

51. A digital (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post construction BMP’s 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 drains lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or Private Street and any drainage easements.

52. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the stormwater runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

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

The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been 103
Resolution No 23-02

______________________
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.

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 predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP 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.

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

56. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.

Fuel Modification

57. The project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan prior to the issuance of final building permits.
104
Resolution No 23-02