Recycled Paper
BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
Project Address: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 20-068
Project Description: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house Date of Review: June 21, 2021
Reviewer:
Dave Crawford Signature:
Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 6/8/21
Site Survey: 6/8/21
Landscape Plan: 6/8/21
Hydrozone Plan: 6/8/21
Irrigation Plan: 6/8/21
Fuel Modification Plan: 6/8/21
Grading Plan: 6/8/21
OWTS Plan: 6/8/21
Bio Assessment:
Bio Inventory:
Native Tree Survey: 12/29/20 (ESA)
Native Tree Protection
Plan:
Miscellaneous:
Previous Reviews: 1/11/21 (Incomplete)
REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.
APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.
CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.
ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 127
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
June 21, 2021
DISCUSSION:
1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 310,245 gallons per year (gpy). The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 288,519 gpy. Therefore, the project meets the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:
A. No new development is permitted on slopes of 4:1 (25%) or steeper.
B. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
C. 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.
D. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter 9.22). 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 9.22. (form attached) E. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.
For approval contact:
Nima Parsa
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check.
F. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height.
G. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). 128
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
June 21, 2021
H. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.
I. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.
J. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote and copper arsenate.
K. Grading shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 - October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.
L. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed 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 the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.
M. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.
N. New fencing of any single area exceeding ½ acre 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.
2. 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.
-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
129
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheet(s) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
Signature
January 8, 2021
130
&LW\RI0DOLEX
(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKƔ(QYLURQPHQWDO6XVWDLQDELOLW\'HSDUWPHQW 6WXDUW5DQFK5RDGā0DOLEX&DOLIRUQLDā
3KRQH
ā)D[
āZZZPDOLEXFLW\RUJ
3DJHRI
7 ?(QY+HDOWK5HYLHZ/RJ?3URMHFW5HYLHZ?=XPLUH]'ULYH?=XPLUH]'U?&'3?B=XPLUH]'UB&'3B(+FRQIOWUB&5&GRF[ 5HF\FOHG3DSHU (19,5210(17$/+($/7+5(9,(:6+((7
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
$SSOLFDQW
QDPHDQGHPDLO
DGGUHVV
&KULV'HOHDX6FKPLW]DQG$VVRFLDWHV,QF
FGHOHDX#VFKPLW]DQGDVVRFLDWHVQHW
3URMHFW$GGUHVV
=XPLUH]'ULYH
0DOLEX&DOLIRUQLD
3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R
&'3
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
1 6)5
QGXQLW
SRRO
FDEDQD
GHPRH[LVWLQJKRXVH
J
'DWHRI5HYLHZ
-DQXDU\
M S
S
J
5HYLHZHU
0DWW-DQRXVHN 6LJQDWXUH
\
&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
3KRQH
H[W (PDLO
PMDQRXVHN#PDOLEXFLW\RUJ
J
68%0,77$/,1)250$7,21
$UFKLWHFWXUDO3ODQV
:DUUHQ*DUUHWW
3ODQVGDWHG
UHFHLYHG
*UDGLQJ3ODQV
$+6,57
3ODQVGDWHG
/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
*LUYLQ$VVRFLDWHV
3ODQVGDWHG
J
2:763ODQ
6ROLG6RLOVDQG*HRORJLF&RQVXOWDQWV
2:76SODQGDWHG
S
2:76DQG*HRORJ\
5HSRUW
6ROLG6RLOVDQG*HRORJLF&RQVXOWDQWV
*HRORJLF 6RLOV(QJLQHHULQJ5HSRUWGDWHG
J S
0LVFHOODQHRXV
S
3UHYLRXV5HYLHZV
5(9,(:),1',1*6
3ODQQLQJ6WDJH
&21)250$1&( 5(9,(: &203/(7( IRU WKH &LW\ RI 0DOLEX /RFDO &RDVWDO 3URJUDP/RFDO,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ
/,3
DQG0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGH
00&
7KHOLVWHG
FRQGLWLRQVRI3ODQQLQJVWDJHFRQIRUPDQFHUHYLHZDQGSODQFKHFNUHYLHZFRPPHQWVVKDOO EHDGGUHVVHGSULRUWRSODQFKHFNDSSURYDO
&21)250$1&( 5(9,(: ,1&203/(7( IRU WKH &LW\ RI 0DOLEX /,3 DQG 00& 7KH OLVWHG 3ODQQLQJ VWDJH UHYLHZ FRPPHQWV VKDOO EH DGGUHVVHG SULRU WR FRQIRUPDQFH UHYLHZFRPSOHWLRQ
S S SS
2:763ORW3ODQ
1275(48,5('
S
5(48,5('
DWWDFKHGKHUHWR
5(48,5('
QRWDWWDFKHG
%DVHGXSRQWKHSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDQGVXEPLWWDOLQIRUPDWLRQQRWHGDERYHDFRQIRUPDQFHUHYLHZZDV FRPSOHWHG IRU D QHZ DGYDQFHG RQVLWH ZDVWHZDWHU WUHDWPHQW V\VWHP 2:76
SURSRVHG WR VHUYH WKH
RQVLWH ZDVWHZDWHU WUHDWPHQW DQG GLVSRVDO QHHGV RI WKH VXEMHFW SURSHUW\ 7KH SURSRVHG DGYDQFHG 2:76PHHWVWKHPLQLPXPUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGH 00&
DQGWKH&LW\RI0DOLEX
/RFDO&RDVWDO3URJUDP
/&3
/RFDO,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ
/,3
3OHDVHGLVWULEXWHWKLVUHYLHZVKHHWWRDOO
RI WKH SURMHFW FRQVXOWDQWV DQG SULRU WR ILQDO DSSURYDO SURYLGH D FRRUGLQDWHG VXEPLWWDO DGGUHVVLQJ DOO FRQGLWLRQVIRUILQDODSSURYDODQGSODQFKHFNLWHPV
RXVH
PMDQRXVHN#PDOLEXFLW\R
131
&LW\RI0DOLEX (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK5HYLHZ6KHHW
'0:
=XPLUH]'ULYH
-DQXDU\
3DJHRI
7 ?(QY+HDOWK5HYLHZ/RJ?3URMHFW5HYLHZ?=XPLUH]'ULYH?=XPLUH]'U?&'3?B=XPLUH]'UB&'3B(+FRQIOWUB&5&GRF[ 5HF\FOHG3DSHU 7KH FRQGLWLRQDO FRQIRUPDQFHILQGLQJV KHUHE\WUDQVPLWWHG FRPSOHWHWKH3ODQQLQJ VWDJH(QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWKUHYLHZRIWKHVXEMHFWGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW,QRUGHUWRREWDLQ(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKILQDODSSURYDO RI WKH SURMHFW 2:76 3ORW 3ODQ DQG DVVRFLDWHG FRQVWUXFWLRQ GUDZLQJV GXULQJ %XLOGLQJ 6DIHW\ SODQ
FKHFN
DOOFRQGLWLRQVDQGSODQFKHFNLWHPVOLVWHGEHORZPXVWEHDGGUHVVHGWKURXJKVXEPLWWDOVWRWKH (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKRIILFH
&RQGLWLRQVRI3ODQQLQJ&RQIRUPDQFH5HYLHZIRU%XLOGLQJ3ODQ&KHFN$SSURYDO
2:76 RQ $UFKLWHFWXUDO *UDGLQJ DQG /DQGVFDSH 3ODQV 7KH ILQDO $UFKLWHFWXUDO 6LWH 3ODQ
*UDGLQJ 3ODQV DQG /DQGVFDSH 3ODQV PXVW VKRZ
WKH H[LVWLQJ 2:76 FRPSRQHQWV FOHDUO\
ODEHOHG ³WR EH DEDQGRQHG´ DQG
WKH SURSRVHG DGYDQFHG2:76 LQFOXGLQJWKHWUHDWPHQWWDQN SUHVHQWIXWXUHVHHSDJHSLWVDQGDOOOLQHVRIFRQQHFWLRQIURPWKHVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFHDQGJXHVW KRXVH7KH UHVSHFWLYHSODQVPXVW FOHDUO\GHPRQVWUDWHPLQLPXP UHTXLUHG VHWEDFNVLQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWK7DEOH
(
RIWKH0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGH
)LQDO2QVLWH:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW6\VWHP
2:76
3ORW3ODQ
$ILQDOSORWSODQSUHSDUHGE\D
&LW\ 5HJLVWHUHG 2:76 'HVLJQHU VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG VKRZLQJ DQ 2:76 GHVLJQ PHHWLQJ WKH PLQLPXP UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WKH 0DOLEX 0XQLFLSDO &RGH 00&
DQG WKH /RFDO &RDVWDO 3URJUDP
/&3
/RFDO,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQ
/,3
7KHSODQVPXVWLQFOXGHDOOQHFHVVDU\FRQVWUXFWLRQGHWDLOV WKHSURSRVHGGUDLQDJHSODQIRUWKHGHYHORSHGSURSHUW\DQGWKHSURSRVHGODQGVFDSHSODQIRUWKH GHYHORSHG SURSHUW\ 7KH 2:76 3ORW 3ODQ VKDOO VKRZ HVVHQWLDO IHDWXUHV RI WKH 2:76 H[LVWLQJ LPSURYHPHQWVDQGSURSRVHGQHZLPSURYHPHQWV7KHSORWSODQPXVW ILWRQDQ´[´VKHHW OHDYLQJD´OHIWPDUJLQFOHDU WRSURYLGHVSDFH IRUD&LW\DSSOLHGOHJHQG,IWKHSODQVFDOHLV VXFKWKDWPRUHVSDFHLVQHHGHGWRFOHDUO\VKRZFRQVWUXFWLRQGHWDLOVDQGRUDOOQHFHVVDU\VHWEDFNV ODUJHUVKHHWVPD\DOVREHSURYLGHG
XSWRDPD[LPXPVL]HRI´[´IRUUHYLHZE\(QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK
)LQDO2:76'HVLJQ5HSRUW3ODQVDQG6\VWHP6SHFLILFDWLRQV $ILQDO2:76GHVLJQUHSRUWDQG
ODUJH VHW RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ GUDZLQJV ZLWK V\VWHP VSHFLILFDWLRQV IRXU VHWV
VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG WR
GHVFULEHWKH2:76GHVLJQEDVLVDQGDOO FRPSRQHQWVSURSRVHGIRUXVHLQWKH FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH 2:76$OOSODQVDQGUHSRUWVPXVWEHVLJQHGE\D&LW\5HJLVWHUHG2:76'HVLJQHUDQGWKHSODQV VWDPSHGE\WKHSURMHFW*HRORJLVW&RDVWDO(QJLQHHUDQG6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHUDVDSSOLFDEOH7KHILQDO 2:76 GHVLJQ UHSRUW DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ GUDZLQJV VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG ZLWKWKH GHVLJQHU¶V VLJQDWXUH SURIHVVLRQDOUHJLVWUDWLRQQXPEHUDQGVWDPS
LIDSSOLFDEOH
7KHILQDO 2:76 GHVLJQ VXEPLWWDO VKDOO FRQWDLQWKHIROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ DGGLWLRQWRWKH LWHPV
OLVWHGDERYH
D 5HTXLUHG WUHDWPHQW FDSDFLW\ IRU ZDVWHZDWHU WUHDWPHQW DQG GLVLQIHFWLRQ V\VWHPV 7KH WUHDWPHQWFDSDFLW\VKDOOEHVSHFLILHGLQWHUPVRIIORZUDWHJDOORQVSHUGD\ JSG
DQGVKDOOEH
VXSSRUWHG E\ FDOFXODWLRQV UHODWLQJ WKH WUHDWPHQW FDSDFLW\ WR WKH QXPEHU RI EHGURRP HTXLYDOHQWV SOXPELQJ GUDLQDJHIL[WXUH XQLWV DQGWKH VXEVXUIDFH HIIOXHQW GLVSHUVDO V\VWHP DFFHSWDQFHUDWH7KHGUDLQDJHIL[WXUHXQLWFRXQWPXVWEHFOHDUO\LGHQWLILHGLQDVVRFLDWLRQZLWK WKH GHVLJQ WUHDWPHQW FDSDFLW\ HYHQ LI WKH GHVLJQ LV EDVHG RQ WKH QXPEHU RI EHGURRPV $YHUDJHDQGSHDNUDWHVRIK\GUDXOLFORDGLQJWRWKHWUHDWPHQWV\VWHPVKDOOEHVSHFLILHGLQWKH ILQDOGHVLJQ
132
&LW\RI0DOLEX (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK5HYLHZ6KHHW
'0:
=XPLUH]'ULYH
-DQXDU\
3DJHRI
7 ?(QY+HDOWK5HYLHZ/RJ?3URMHFW5HYLHZ?=XPLUH]'ULYH?=XPLUH]'U?&'3?B=XPLUH]'UB&'3B(+FRQIOWUB&5&GRF[ 5HF\FOHG3DSHU E 6HZDJHDQGHIIOXHQWSXPSGHVLJQFDOFXODWLRQV
DVDSSOLFDEOH
F 'HVFULSWLRQRISURSRVHGZDVWHZDWHUWUHDWPHQWDQGRUGLVLQIHFWLRQV\VWHPHTXLSPHQW6WDWH WKH SURSRVHG W\SH RI WUHDWPHQW V\VWHP
V
HJ DHURELF WUHDWPHQW WH[WLOH ILOWHU XOWUDYLROHW GLVLQIHFWLRQ HWF
PDMRU FRPSRQHQWV PDQXIDFWXUHUV DQG PRGHO QXPEHUV IRU ³SDFNDJH´ V\VWHPV
DQGWKHGHVLJQEDVLVIRUHQJLQHHUHGV\VWHPV
G 6SHFLILFDWLRQV VXSSRUWLQJ JHRORJ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG SHUFRODWLRQ WHVW UHVXOWV IRU WKH VXEVXUIDFH HIIOXHQW GLVSHUVDO SRUWLRQ RIWKH RQVLWH ZDVWHZDWHUGLVSRVDO V\VWHP7KLVPXVW LQFOXGH WKH SURSRVHG W\SH RI HIIOXHQW GLVSHUVDO V\VWHP GUDLQILHOG WUHQFK VHHSDJH SLW
VXEVXUIDFHGULSHWF
DVZHOODVWKHV\VWHP¶VJHRPHWULFGLPHQVLRQVDQGEDVLFFRQVWUXFWLRQ IHDWXUHV6XSSRUWLQJFDOFXODWLRQVVKDOOEHSUHVHQWHGWKDWUHODWHWKHUHVXOWVRIVRLOVDQDO\VLVRU SHUFRODWLRQLQILOWUDWLRQWHVWVWRWKH SURMHFWHG VXEVXUIDFH HIIOXHQW DFFHSWDQFH UDWH LQFOXGLQJ DQ\XQLWFRQYHUVLRQVRUVDIHW\IDFWRUV$YHUDJHDQGSHDN UDWHVRIK\GUDXOLFORDGLQJWRWKH HIIOXHQW GLVSHUVDO V\VWHP VKDOO EH VSHFLILHG LQ WKH ILQDO GHVLJQ 7KH SURMHFWHG VXEVXUIDFH HIIOXHQWDFFHSWDQFHUDWHVKDOOEHUHSRUWHGLQXQLWVRIWRWDOJDOORQVSHUGD\ JSG
DQGJDOORQV
SHU VTXDUHIRRWSHUGD\
JSVI
6SHFLILFDWLRQVIRUWKH VXEVXUIDFHHIIOXHQWGLVSHUVDO V\VWHP VKDOOEHVKRZQWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKHGHVLJQK\GUDXOLFORDGLQJ UDWH LHDYHUDJHDQGSHDN
2:76 HIIOXHQW IORZ UHSRUWHG LQ XQLWV RI JSG
7KH VXEVXUIDFH HIIOXHQW GLVSHUVDO V\VWHP
GHVLJQ PXVW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH QXPEHU RI EHGURRPV IL[WXUH XQLWV DQG EXLOGLQJ RFFXSDQF\FKDUDFWHULVWLFV
H $OO2:76GHVLJQGUDZLQJVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKHZHWVLJQDWXUHDQGW\SHGQDPHRIWKH 2:76GHVLJQHU,IWKHSODQVFDOHLVVXFKWKDWPRUHVSDFHWKDQLVDYDLODEOHRQWKH´[´ SORWSODQLVQHHGHGWRFOHDUO\VKRZFRQVWUXFWLRQGHWDLOVODUJHUVKHHWVPD\DOVREHSURYLGHG
XS WR D PD[LPXP VL]H RI ´ [ ´ IRU UHYLHZ E\ (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK
>1RWH
)RU2:76ILQDOGHVLJQVIXOOVL]HSODQVIRUDUHDOVRUHTXLUHGIRUUHYLHZE\%XLOGLQJ 6DIHW\DQG3ODQQLQJ@
&HUWLILHG )L[WXUH 8QLW:RUNVKHHWV
$IL[WXUH XQLW ZRUNVKHHW VKRZLQJ DOO H[LVWLQJ DQG SURSRVHG EHGURRPVDQGGUDLQDJHIL[WXUHXQLWV
')8
PXVWEHFRPSOHWHGDQGFHUWLILHGE\DQ$UFKLWHFW&LYLO (QJLQHHU (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK 6SHFLDOLVW &LW\ 5HJLVWHUHG 3UDFWLWLRQHU RU DQ ³$´ ³&´ ³&´ &RQWUDFWRU/LFHQVH7KHEHGURRPDQG')8FRXQWVLQGLFDWHGRQWKHZRUNVKHHWPXVWPDWFKWKHILQDO DUFKLWHFWXUDOSODQVPlease submit separate worksheets for each structure that flows to the OWTS.
([LVWLQJ 2:76 WR EH $EDQGRQHG
)LQDO SODQV VKDOO FOHDUO\ VKRZ WKH ORFDWLRQV RI DOO H[LVWLQJ 2:76 FRPSRQHQWV
VHUYLQJSUHH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQW
WREHDEDQGRQHGDQGSURYLGHSURFHGXUHV
IRUWKH2:76¶SURSHUDEDQGRQPHQWLQFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKWKH0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGH
:RUNHU6DIHW\1RWHDQG$EDQGRQPHQWRI([LVWLQJ2:76
7KHIROORZLQJQRWHVKDOOEHDGGHGWR
WKH SODQ GUDZLQJV LQFOXGHG ZLWKWKH2:76ILQDO GHVLJQ ³Prior to commencing work to abandon,
remove, or replace existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) components an “OWTS Abandonment Permit” shall be obtained from the City of Malibu. All work performed in the OWTS abandonment, removal, or replacement area shall be performed in strict accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental and occupational safety and health regulatory requirements. The obtainment of any such required permits or approvals for this scope of work shall be the responsibility of the applicant and their agents.´
%XLOGLQJ3ODQV
$OOSURMHFWDUFKLWHFWXUDOSODQVDQGJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHSODQV VKDOOEH VXEPLWWHGIRU (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKUHYLHZDQGDSSURYDO7KHVHSODQVPXVWEHDSSURYHGE\WKH%XLOGLQJ6DIHW\ 'LYLVLRQSULRUWRUHFHLYLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKILQDODSSURYDO 133
&LW\RI0DOLEX (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK5HYLHZ6KHHW
'0:
=XPLUH]'ULYH
-DQXDU\
3DJHRI
7 ?(QY+HDOWK5HYLHZ/RJ?3URMHFW5HYLHZ?=XPLUH]'ULYH?=XPLUH]'U?&'3?B=XPLUH]'UB&'3B(+FRQIOWUB&5&GRF[ 5HF\FOHG3DSHU
2XWGRRU 'UDLQDJH )L[WXUH &RYHUV
7KH ILQDO SURMHFW SODQV PXVW LQFOXGH GHWDLOV IRU SHUPDQHQW FRYHUVIRUDOORXWGRRUVKRZHUVDQGGUDLQDJHIL[WXUHVWKDWIORZWRWKH2:76
3URRIRI2ZQHUVKLS
3URRIRIRZQHUVKLSRIVXEMHFWSURSHUW\VKDOOEHVXEPLWWHG
2SHUDWLRQV 0DLQWHQDQFH 0DQXDO
$Q RSHUDWLRQV DQG PDLQWHQDQFH PDQXDO VSHFLILHG E\ WKH 2:76GHVLJQHUVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKHSURSHUW\RZQHUDQGPDLQWHQDQFHSURYLGHURIWKHSURSRVHG DGYDQFHG2:76
0DLQWHQDQFH&RQWUDFW
$PDLQWHQDQFHFRQWUDFWH[HFXWHGEHWZHHQWKHRZQHURIVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ DQGDQHQWLW\TXDOLILHGLQWKHRSLQLRQRIWKH&LW\RI0DOLEXWRPDLQWDLQWKHSURSRVHGDGYDQFHGRQVLWH ZDVWHZDWHUWUHDWPHQW V\VWHP VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG SULRUWR(QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK DSSURYDOPlease note only original “wet VLJQDWXUH´GRFXPHQWVDUHDFFHSWDEOH
$GYDQFHG2QVLWH:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW6\VWHP
2:76
&RYHQDQW
$FRYHQDQWUXQQLQJZLWK
WKHODQGVKDOOEHH[HFXWHGEHWZHHQWKH&LW\RI0DOLEXDQGWKHKROGHURIWKHIHHVLPSOHDEVROXWHDVWR VXEMHFW UHDOSURSHUW\DQG UHFRUGHGZLWKWKH&LW\RI0DOLEX5HFRUGHU¶V2IILFH6DLGFRYHQDQWVKDOO VHUYH DV FRQVWUXFWLYH QRWLFH WR DQ\ IXWXUH SXUFKDVHU IRU YDOXH WKDW WKH 2:76 VHUYLQJ VXEMHFW SURSHUW\LVDQDGYDQFHGPHWKRGRIVHZDJHGLVSRVDOSXUVXDQWWRWKH&LW\RI0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGH 6DLGFRYHQDQWVKDOOEHSURYLGHGE\WKH&LW\RI0DOLEX(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK$GPLQLVWUDWRUPlease submit a certified FRS\LVVXHGE\WKH&LW\RI0DOLEX5HFRUGHU
3URMHFW *HRORJLVW*HRWHFKQLFDO &RQVXOWDQW $SSURYDO 3URMHFW *HRORJLVW*HRWHFKQLFDO
&RQVXOWDQW ILQDO DSSURYDO RI WKH 2:76 SODQ VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG WR WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK $GPLQLVWUDWRU
&LW\RI0DOLEX*HRORJLVW*HRWHFKQLFDO$SSURYDO
&LW\RI0DOLEXJHRWHFKQLFDOVWDIIILQDODSSURYDO
RIWKH2:76SODQVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK$GPLQLVWUDWRU
&LW\RI0DOLEX3XEOLF:RUNV$SSURYDO
&LW\RI0DOLEX3XEOLF:RUNVILQDODSSURYDORIWKH2:76 SODQVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK$GPLQLVWUDWRU
&LW\ RI 0DOLEX 3ODQQLQJ $SSURYDO
&LW\ RI 0DOLEX 3ODQQLQJ 'HSDUWPHQW ILQDO DSSURYDO RI WKH 2:76SODQVKDOOEHREWDLQHG
(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK)LQDO5HYLHZ)HH
$ILQDOIHHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHDGRSWHGIHHVFKHGXOH DWWKHWLPHRIILQDODSSURYDOVKDOOEHSDLGWRWKH&LW\RI0DOLEXIRU(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKUHYLHZRIWKH 2:76GHVLJQDQGV\VWHPVSHFLILFDWLRQV
134
&LW\RI0DOLEX (QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK5HYLHZ6KHHW
'0:
=XPLUH]'ULYH
-DQXDU\
3DJHRI
7 ?(QY+HDOWK5HYLHZ/RJ?3URMHFW5HYLHZ?=XPLUH]'ULYH?=XPLUH]'U?&'3?B=XPLUH]'UB&'3B(+FRQIOWUB&5&GRF[ 5HF\FOHG3DSHU
2SHUDWLQJ3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQDQG)HH
,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWK0DOLEX0XQLFLSDO&RGHDQDSSOLFDWLRQ VKDOO EH PDGH WR WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO +HDOWK RIILFH IRU DQ 2QVLWH :DVWHZDWHU 7UHDWPHQW 6\VWHP RSHUDWLQJSHUPLW$QRSHUDWLQJSHUPLWIHHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHDGRSWHGIHHVFKHGXOHDWWKHWLPH RIILQDODSSURYDOVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ RR
,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHDERYHUHTXLUHPHQWVSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK RIILFHDW\RXUHDUOLHVWFRQYHQLHQFH
FF
(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKILOH
3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQW
135
136
FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Compliance with the conditions checked below is required prior to Fire Department approval.
The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment ______ The project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review ______ The required fire flow for this project is ________ gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) ______ The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system. ______ Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior to Fire Department Approval ______ Conditions below marked “not approved” shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.
App’d N/app’d
Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width and grade %) as shown from the public street to the proposed project. _____ ______ Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround _____ ______ Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking Access (including grade %) _____ ______ Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates _____ ______
*County of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. **Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. __________________________________ _____________________ SIGNATURE DATE Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.
The Fire Prevention Engineering may be contacted by phone at (818) 880-0341or at the Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday – Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM Rev 04/21/10 mr
X
X
X
X
1,250
C. KENNELLY 8-12-2021
X
X
X
X
137
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road x Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 x Fax (310) 456-3356 x www.malibucity.org
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: May 12, 2021 Review Log #: 4702
Site Address: 6734 Zumirez Drive
Lot/Tract/PM #: Planning #: CDP 20-068
Applicant/Contact: Chris Deleau, [email protected] BPC/GPC #:
Contact Phone #: (818) 338-3636 Fax#: Planner:
Project Type: Demolish existing residence, NSFR, guest house, pool and cabana, storage building, NOWTS.
Submittal Information
Consultant(s) / Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
Solid Soils and Geologic Consultants, Inc. (Sivas, CEG 2565; Simon RCE 82610): 3-26-21, 1-27-21, 8-4-20
Grading & Drainage Plan by Ahsirt Engineering, Inc., Sheets G1 thru G4, dated 7-8-20.
Architectural Plans by Warren Garrett dated 11-20-20.
Architectural Survey by Design Studio, Inc., Sheets A-100 and A-101 7-7-20.
Previous Reviews: 2-24-21, 1-15-21
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The revised residential development project is APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective.
The revised residential development project is NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective.
Building Plan-Check Stage Review
Awaiting Building Plan Check submittal. Please respond to the listed ‘Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.
APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. Please review the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ and incorporate into Building Plan-Check submittals.
NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. Please respond to the listed ‘Building PlanCheck Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.
Remarks
The referenced Architectural and Grading plans as well as the geotechnical report have been reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing residence and guest house, and the construction of new single-family residence with basement, guest house, detached garage, pool (with no infinity edge) and spa, and storage building. The proposed development also includes a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS).
138
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6760) – 2 –
Grading will include 6,840 cubic yards of removal and recompaction (3,420 cubic yard of cut and 3,420 cubic yard of fill), 1,320 cubic yards of exempt understructure cut, 210 cubic yards of safety cut, and 235 cubic yards of non-exempt cut, 280 cubic yards of non-exempt fill. The balance of grading will result in 1,915 cubic yards of export.
Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:
1. Please submit a fee of $1,016.00 to City geotechnical staff for building plan check review.
2. The consultant should discuss and evaluate as necessary the potential for lateral surcharge on basement sidewalls due to adjacent structures/foundations using an appropriate method of analyses (e.g.: 1- Spangler & Handy {1982}, Soil Engineering, fourth Edition, Harper & Row, New York. 2- Navy Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.2, Figures 11 & 12). Using the 1:1 criterion for lateral surcharge is not acceptable unless substantiated by analyses and/or references. Mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary.
3. Please include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil Expansion Index shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations, as necessary.”
4. Please include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil corrosivity shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations”.
5. Please include the following note on the plans, as appropriate: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall prepare an as-built report documenting the installation of the pile foundation elements for review by City Geotechnical staff. The report shall include total depths of the piles, minimum depth into the recommended bearing material, actual depth into the recommended bearing material, and a map depicting the locations of the piles.”
6. Two sets of final grading, retaining wall, swimming pool/spa, tennis court, and residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and wet stamped and manually signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical/Civil Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations and items in this review sheet over the counter at City Hall. Appointments for final review and approval of the plans may be made by calling or emailing City Geotechnical staff.
1. ELECTRONIC PLANS: If final foundation and civil plans are digitally signed and stamped by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as allowed under Board of Registration For Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (2020 PE &PLS Board Rules (16 CCR §§400-476), the Plan Review Letter must contain the following:
x Project description – Address, scope, including structures being permitted (e.g. pool, guest house etc.).
x Plan set information - The date and preparer of the plan set reviewed; this must match the plan set that was submitted to the city for final approval.
x Report references -All applicable geotechnical or coastal engineering reports need to be referenced.
x Approval of specific plan sheets reviewed – List all plan sheets approved, e.g. civil (grading and drainage) as well as structural.
x Licensed Professional signature and stamp - The letter must be signed and stamped by all licensed professionals who signed the reports.
139
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6760) – 3 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.
Engineering Geology Review by: 5/12/21
Christopher Sexton, C.E.G. #1441, Exp. 11-30-20 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by __________________________ 5/12/21 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-21 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.
140
City of Malibu
– GEOTECHNICAL –
NOTES FOR BUILDING PLAN-CHECK
The following standard items should be incorporated into Building Plan-Check submittals, as appropriate:
1. One set of grading, retaining wall, swimming
pool/spa, tennis court, and residence plans,
incorporating the Project Geotechnical
Consultant’s recommendations and items in this
review sheet, must be submitted to City
geotechnical staff for review. Additional review
comments may be raised at that time that may
require a response.
2. Show the address and phone number of the
Project Geotechnical Consultant(s) on the cover
sheet of the Plans.
3. Include the following note on all the Foundation
Plans: “All foundation excavations must be
observed and approved by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of
reinforcing steel.”
4. Include the following note on Grading and
Foundation Plans: “Subgrade soils shall be tested
for Expansion Index prior to pouring footings or
slabs; Foundation Plans shall be reviewed and
revised by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as
appropriate.”
5. Foundation setback distances from descending
slopes shall be in accordance with Section 1808 of
the Malibu Building Code, or the requirements of
the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s
recommendations, whichever are more stringent.
Show minimum foundation setback distances on
the foundation plans, as applicable.
6. The Foundation Plans for the proposed structures
shall clearly depict the embedment material and
minimum depth of embedment for the foundations
in accordance with the Project Geotechnical
Consultant’s recommendations.
7. Show the onsite wastewater treatment system on
the Site Plans.
8. Please contact the Building and Safety
Department regarding the submittal requirements
for a grading and drainage plan review.
Grading Plans (as Applicable)
1. Grading Plans shall clearly depict the limits and
depths of overexcavation, as applicable.
2. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built
compaction report prepared by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the
City for review. The report must include the
results of all density tests as well as a map
depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density
tests, locations and elevations of all removal
bottoms, locations and elevations of all keyways
and back drains, and locations and elevations of
all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. Geologic
conditions exposed during grading must be
depicted on an as-built geologic map. This
comment must be included as a note on the
grading plans.
Retaining Walls (As Applicable)
1. Show retaining wall backdrain and backfill design,
as recommended by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant, on the Plans.
2. Retaining walls separate from a residence require
separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety
Department for permit information. One set of
retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City
for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional
concerns may be raised at that time which may
require a response by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and applicant.
141
PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO:
City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
DATE: 12/29/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.
The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.
SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
X
Edward Rodriguez January 12, 2021
142
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20-068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper
City of Malibu
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Edward Rodriguez, Associate Civil Engineer
Date: January 12, 2021
Re: Conditions of Approval for 6734 Zumeriz Dr., CDP 20-068 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.
Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway.
The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inch of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.
2. Several existing private improvements are located within the City’s right-of-way, such as (but not limited to) landscaping, railroad ties, fencing. These improvements are required to be removed as part of this project and must be shown on the plans. The applicant shall place notes on the plans for the removal of existing encroachments within the City’s right-of-way.
Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the removal of the private improvements within the City’s right-of-way.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
3. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
x Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
143
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper x Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
x Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources
4. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with the City’s LIP Section
8.3. A note shall be placed on the project that addresses this condition.
5. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
x Public Works Department General Notes
x 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).
x The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated.
x 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.
x If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
x If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
x Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
x Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
6. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction 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 drain lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction 144
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.
7. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.
STORMWATER
8. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
x Installation of permanent BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
x Prohibits the discharge of trash.
x 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).
x Elimination of non-storm water discharges.
9. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an 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
145
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper Stabilized Construction Entrance/ Exit
Stabilized Construction Roadway
Entrance/ Exit Tire Wash
Non-Stormwater
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.
10. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the applicant submitting the required Construction General Permit documents to the State Water Quality Control Board, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs and developed and certified by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California Engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
x Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area.
x Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees.
x Sediment/Erosion Control.
x Controls to prevent tracking on and off the site.
x Non-storm water controls.
x Material management (delivery and storage).
x Spill Prevention and Control.
x Waste Management
x Identification of site Risk Level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit.
x Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to update the ESCP to reflect current conditions, or 146
5 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grading and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.”
11. A State Construction activity permit is required for this project due to the disturbance of more than one acre of land for development. Provide a copy of the letter from the State Water Quality Control Board containing the WDID number prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
12. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development.
The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP 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 of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.
13. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. 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 of the site.
The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
x Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
x Source Control BMP’s
x Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. x Drainage Improvements
x A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
x 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 measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. x The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to 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 147
6 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.
14. HYDROMODIFICATION – Alteration or disturbance of streams or natural drainage courses or human-made or altered drainage courses that have replaced natural streams or drainages and serve the same function, shall be prohibited.
x Necessary water supply projects where no feasible alternative exists. x Flood protection for existing development where there is no other feasible alternative. x The improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
MISCELLANOUS
15. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
16. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides 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:
x The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
x There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and x The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign 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.
Please include the marked-up set of plans with your next submittal. Also, please include a comment response letter with your next submittal that addresses the above-mentioned items. Failure to submit a detailed comment response letter will result in the Public Works Department not accepting your re-submittal and or may result in additional plan checking fees. 148
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 11:50 PM
To: Lisa Hilton
Subject: RE: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for your comment and sorry for the late response on this. I am looking into the view corridor issue and will get back to you soon.
Part of the review is assessing for impacts to protected views from Primary View Determinations of nearby residences.
The proposed project is not anticipated to obstruct any of these privately protected views.
Zumirez Drive is not a scenic road as indicated in the City’s Local Coastal Program, and as such, it has not traditionally been subject to the City’s view corridor requirements. Never the less, I am ensuring that view corridor requirements do not apply to this project.
I will be in touch soon with a final determination but please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Tyler Eaton
Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
Malibucity.org/planning
From: Lisa Hilton
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 8:22 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Hello Tyler Eaton/Malibu City Planning,
I have notified the owner of this property twice that their home and trees are obstructing on coastal views. Now that the story poles are up it is easy to see that the sunrise and ocean view will be 100% blocked. The homeowner could easily situate the home off on the left side and still have an amazing view and still keep a view corridor on the right side for others.
Although this view is from my property, it would also affect other homes near by. This is a popular walking street too, so anyone walking would also have the view blocked.
Thank you for considering this,
149
ATTACHMENT 4
2 Sincerely,
Lisa Hilton
6725 Zumirez Drive
150
3 151
4 152
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Lisa Hilton
Subject: RE: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Hi Lisa,
Private properties with a Primary View Determination (PVD) registered with the City are usually more protected, especially against vegetation. We also try to protect public views to the maximum extent feasible. I did check for homes nearby with a PVD and none look to be affected by the proposed development. The project will be conditioned to maintain vegetation heights and much of the existing vegetation in the middle of the property is being removed or mitigated which could improve visual conditions.
You definitely have a say in the matter and I will share your correspondence with the Planning Commission, who makes the ultimate decision on the proposed development. You can also attend the Planning Commission meeting if you would like to speak. This item is scheduled for the August 1 meeting and will be held at 6:30pm.
I am still looking into the view corridor issue.
Tyler
From: Lisa Hilton
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 11:42 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Thank you Tyler for your response.
So I understand that you are saying that only some properties have protected view rights, and our property and our neighbors don’t have those rights on this project and we have no say if someone blocks a view with tall trees/home/garage or wall?
My understanding was that in Malibu you can’t block another neighbors view completely, but that’s more just a “good neighbor” concept? It does seem that a view corridor could be created and still allow for a fab home, landscaping and an exterior wall. It would be unfortunate to loose the sunrise Tyler.
Thank you for checking on this.
Sincerely,
Lisa
On Jun 29, 2022, at 8:22 PM, Lisa Hilton wrote:
153
2 Hello Tyler Eaton/Malibu City Planning,
I have notified the owner of this property twice that their home and trees are obstructing on coastal views. Now that the story poles are up it is easy to see that the sunrise and ocean view will be 100% blocked. The homeowner could easily situate the home off on the left side and still have an amazing view and still keep a view corridor on the right side for others.
Although this view is from my property, it would also affect other homes near by. This is a popular walking street too, so anyone walking would also have the view blocked.
Thank you for considering this,
Sincerely,
Lisa Hilton
<Neighbor's story poles show view will be blocked as well as trees blocking our view 9:21:22.jpeg><IMG_7559.jpeg>
154
1 Tyler Eaton
From: eric zicklin
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Tyler Eaton
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr. (4466-002-001)
Hi Tyler,
I just learned that the structure in our view will have a HOT TUB ON THE ROOF. This means that the top of the current story poles represent merely the FLOOR of the deck that will occupy that roof.
Is this within the city’s rules vis a vis the view corridor? It certainly changes the exposure my house has to that structure when there’s a hot tub on the roof.
I’m now more concerned than my earlier email indicated.
Thank you for your consideration, I hope to hear from you soon, Eric
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 4:40 PM eric zicklin wrote:
Thank you for your response.
It’s actually not the oversized height that’s in our view, but rather the proposed single‐story structure at the property’s southeastern edge (nearest to Paradise Cove) that is now — with story poles and orange tape — highly visible inside our living room and out on our deck.
No vegetation obscures it and I fear that new vegetation will block more of our view.
An entire side of the proposed structure (the wall that would, if built, face Paradise Cove) is in our view and will be prominent if built as indicated by those poles and orange tape. It’s unclear if there will be windows which look at our deck and vice versa, but that would also be objectionable to me.
I’ll attach a photo here, please zoom to the right…. And then let me know what you think? Thank you, I hope to hear from you soon,
Eric Zicklin
155
2 156
3 On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:07 PM Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I see you have a primary view determination on file with the City. While reviewing, I could not tell if the proposed additions at 6734 Zumirez will impact the PVD photos. It looked like existing vegetation might block the development from view.
We try to preserve your protected views to the maximum extent feasible. They are allowed to build up to 18 feet on their property but some of their development is proposed to be up to 24 feet tall. If the portions above 24 feet are impacting your view then I will try to work with the applicant to redesign those portions.
Are there any pictures you can send to me?
Thanks,
Tyler Eaton
Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
//Malibucity.org/planning
From: eric zicklin
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 9:01 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr. (4466‐002‐001)
157
4 Hello Tyler Eaton,
I received in the mail a notice of public hearing about the development of 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu.
Unfortunately, the view from my living room and its deck at now include the story poles of 6734 Zumirez Dr, blocking a part of our view of the ocean and hillside.
Can you help me understand the rules or regulations about problems like this? I’m not eager to slow my neighbor’s work, but I am eager to learn the rules.
I hope you can help me, or direct me to someone who can.
Thank you,
Eric Zicklin
158
1 Planning Commission
From: Zicklin Family < >
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Objection to 6734 Zumirez
Attachments: 6734 Zumirez - Planning Commission.pdf
Hello Rebecca — I’m sending you an objection to the real estate development at 6734 Zumirez. Please share it with the planning commission. Thank you for all your time and attention, Eric Zicklin 159
We, the owners and full-time residents of Zumirez Dr.
Malibu CA, on September 12, 2022, would like to voice our objection to the proposed real estate development at 6734 Zumirez Dr.
We are filing this after some reluctance, as we built a house on this street from 2007-09 and therefore understand how difficult it is to create a home that follows the regulations and the norms of Malibu and its residents. We never wanted to present more challenges for the developers of 6734 Zumirez, but here are the specific reasons we feel compelled to speak up: privacy impact, light and noise pollution, misleading story poles, view impact, and bluff integrity that is threatened by the location of the proposed pool and guest house.
1) PRIVACY IMPACT
Half of our living room will be in direct sight from the proposed guest house at 6734 Zumirez, impacting our privacy.
On the large flat parcel that is 6734 Zumirez Drive, we don’t understand why the proposed guest house can't fit anywhere except in our view? No structure has ever existed at the proposed location in the twenty-three years we’ve lived at this address.
160
Everything in our living room to the left of the red line will be easily seen by occupants and guests of 6734 Zumirez Drive.
This intrusion is doubled by the developers' plans for their guest house roof...
2) MISLEADING STORY POLES
The guest house at 6734 Zumirez is designed to include a hot tub on the roof.
If built as designed, the residents of 6734 Zumirez will be free to gather on that roof, with guests, day and night whenever they like. As far as we know they’ll be free to hang lights on that roof, rig a sound system, install umbrellas, a jumbo video screen, etc.
Therefore, the roof of the proposed guest house is in fact the floor of another living space, at a higher perch than the current story poles. How much higher? Who knows, because the scope of what will be installed on top of the proposed guest house — umbrellas, thatched roof, speaker stands, lighting poles, video 161
screens — is unknown and unacknowledged by story poles that end right where the 6734 Zumirez hot tub party begins.
Additionally, whatever landscaping or screening gets
proposed for the guest-house-roof will further obstruct our views.
Here's a photo of the proposed guest house, taken from our living room. Now imagine a bright loud party ON TOP OF THE STORY POLES, because that's what we'll be facing.
162
3) LIGHT AND SOUND POLLUTION
The hot tub on the roof of the guest house of 6734 Zumirez will surely include lights both inside and around the tub, which will be seen by everyone from the Zumirez bluff to the Paradise Cove bluff. The lights and sounds will carry across the wideopen gulley in between (which is an ESHA) and impact the wildlife from frogs to birds.
4) VIEW IMPACT
Our ocean view will also be impacted:
163
5) BLUFF INTEGRITY
We’re not soil experts, and we defer to those who
are. Simultaneously, we're obliged to express our strong concern as people who've lived along this bluff since 1999: The proposed guest house and the proposed swimming pool
structure at 6734 Zumirez appear to be much closer to the bluff’s edge than any other structure in that area. We want to know that setbacks from the ESHA, the bluff, and the slope are being respected. Stability of that area does not look strong, and the swimming pool structure on the bluff's rim looks huge and, when filled with water, quite heavy. Can the hillside hold it all? Like most of the community, we care about the fragile ESHA that is so close to our home and we hope to see it remain intact even as nearby real estate is responsibly developed.
CONCLUSION:
We respectfully ask that the guest house of 6734 Zumirez Drive be relocated to where it's not in the view of 6716 Zumirez, and that the entire project move safely away from the bluff and ESHA on the property's southeastern edge.
The 6734 parcel is large and flat; pushing so much of the development onto one edge of the property where it encroaches on an ESHA and blocks other people's views doesn't seem like a wise or neighborly plan.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your service to Malibu,
Dottie and Eric Zicklin
Owners and Full-Time Residents of Zumirez Dr.
164
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Ryan Levis
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Tyler Eaton; Kraig Hill; John Mazza; Dennis Smith; Jeffrey D Jennings; Mark Wetton Cc: Scott Halley; Howard M. Bernstein
Subject: From Ryan Levis Architect Re CDP 20-068 - 6734 Zumirez Dr.
Dear Tyler Eaton & City of Malibu Planning Commission Members, We hope you are all well and thank you in advance for your attention to this email.
We represent the owner of 6728 Zumirez Dr.
We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing (photo attached) for the subject CDP application and are witness to the story poles that are erected on the subject site, the neighbor to the south, at 6734 Zumirez Dr. (photos attached).
As you can see by the photos, the proposed new construction at 6734 Zumirez Dr., as represented by the story poles, blocks the significant and scenic bluewater views from the main living area presently enjoyed by the homeowner at 6728 Zumirez Dr.
It would appear that not only are the maximum 18' high sections of the building in violation but so are the higher sections.
We are kindly requesting your presence at the 6728 Zumirez Dr. property to review this condition.
Please let me know if there is any mutually convenient time (or times) to coordinate this so we may notify the owner and possibly meet you there as well.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards,
Ryan
Ryan Levis AIA
Ryan Levis Architect Inc.
Architecture, Planning, Interiors, Project Management
This email is intended for the sole use of the individual(s) and entity(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Use, disclosure, distribution or duplication of the contents of this email by any person who is not the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this email is in error, please notify us immediately, disregard the contents and delete any attachments you may have downloaded. Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Ryan Levis
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:21 AM
Subject: Re CDP 20‐068 ‐ 6734 Zumirez Dr.
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Halley
Good morning Tyler,
I represent the owners at .
165
2 I went to the City yesterday and filed a public records request to see the plans associated with the subject CDP application. I was told the records could take as much as two weeks to retrieve. This is too long because according to the notice, the project will be heard at the Monday August 1st Planning Commission hearing. As a first request, would you be able to pull the records and meet with me sometime soon to review them? Regardless, as you can see by the attached pictures, my client’s scenic blue water views from their main living area are affected by the proposed construction as noted by the story poles.
In addition to meeting regarding the drawings, could we please meet at the site of my client at to see this in person?
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Thank you,
Ryan
166
3 167
4 168
5 169
6 ‐‐
Ryan Levis AIA
Ryan Levis Architect Inc.
Architecture, Planning, Interiors, Project Management
This email is intended for the sole use of the individual(s) and entity(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Use, disclosure, distribution or duplication of the contents of this email by any person who is not the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this email is in error, please notify us immediately, disregard the contents and delete any attachments you may have downloaded. Thank you.
170
Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
RYAN LEVIS ARCHITECT, INC.
* Architecture, Planning, Interiors, Project Management * R
L
A
Date: January 31, 2023 (revision 1)
VIA EMAIL
Attn: City of Malibu
Planning Department
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Tyler Eaton, Case Planner
From: Howard Bernstein Bypass Trust Residence
Re: CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Dr.
Malibu, CA
90265
Dear Richard, Tyler, and whom it may concern,
We submit this letter on behalf of our aggrieved clients, the 50+ year owners of 6728 Zumirez Dr. who’s ‘visually impressive view of the Pacific Ocean’* from their primary living area will be severely impacted by the proposed new residence next door to the south as evidenced by the installed story poles of Coastal Development Permit application 20-068.
Please see attached exhibits A,B,C,&D. Please note, the position of the photo in the exhibits is the same as that of a Primary View Determination PVD 23-001 that was recently recorded.
While we recognize the Malibu Municipal Code section 17.40.040 (17), the proposed new residence massing blocks almost 50% of our clients current visually impressive view of the Pacific Ocean.
We find this amount of blockage to be an egregious violation of our clients long standing view of the Pacific Ocean and request the current proposed building massing and siting of CDP 20-068 be seriously considered by the Planning Department to be rejected, in its current form, as not suitable to go before the Planning Commission on this basis.
At approximately 450+/- feet from Zumirez Dr. to the bluff side end of the proposed development, the 6734 Zumirez property is a very long lot and it would not be a hardship to ask the applicant to shift their proposed development back 25 or 35 feet. Please see attached exhibits E,F,G,H,I,&J reflecting the current Neighborhood Standard condition of bluff side building projections, the proposed development, as well as diagrams of proposed 25 and 35 foot shifts. 171
Further, said analysis of Neighborhood Standards for the current seaward/eastward projection of the existing homes north and south of the proposed project along the coastal bluff show that the proposed new development is extending well beyond this historical line.
We are of the opinion the proposed new development should respect this current Neighborhood Standard.
Please see attached exhibits E & F.
We feel it can be demonstrated that the proposed project of CDP 20-068 can be set back enough from its proposed location so as to not severely impact our clients visually impressive view of the Pacific Ocean while at the same time not materially affecting their own enjoyment of the same visually impressive Ocean view.
We thank you kindly for your time and consideration.
Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this matter.
Thank you,
Ryan James Levis A.I.A.
Principal RYAN LEVIS ARCHITECT INC.
California Architect’s Board license # C34330
* In quotes and italicized as this wording is directly from the Malibu Municipal Code section 17.40.040 (17) 172
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected] C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
RLA
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001 STORY POLE #20 AND #21 APPEAR TO BE MISSING ONSITE
STORY POLE PLAN
EXHIBIT
A
173
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
STORY POLE #20 AND #21
APPEAR TO BE MISSING
3D DIAGRAM STORY POLE OVERLAY
EXHIBIT B
EXISTING CONDITION STORY POLES
174
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
STORY POLE MASSING OVERLAY
EXHIBIT C
EXISTING CONDITION STORY POLES
175
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected] C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
RLA
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
3D MASSING STUDY
EXHIBIT
D
EXISTING CONDITION STORY POLES
176
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
PRIMARY VIEW DIRECTION
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARD SETBACK
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS EXISTING CONDITION
EXHIBIT E
177
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
450'
PRIMARY VIEW DIRECTION
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARD SETBACK
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS EXISTING CONDITION
WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
EXHIBIT F
178
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
415'
PRIMARY VIEW DIRECTION
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARD SETBACK
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS EXISTING CONDITION
WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 35' SETBACK
FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
EXHIBIT G
179
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected] C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
RLA
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
3D MASSING STUDY
35 FEET SHIFT
EXHIBIT
H
EXISTING CONDITION STORY POLES
180
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected]
C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
R
L
A
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
425
PRIMARY VIEW DIRECTION
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARD SETBACK
NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS EXISTING CONDITION
WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 25' SETBACK
FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
EXHIBIT I
181
GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.75
Ph. (808) 268-8475
E: [email protected] C 2023 Ryan Levis Architect, Inc.
Ryan Levis
Architect
RLA
6734 ZUMIREZ
DRIVE, Malibu, CA
APN: 4466-002-001
3D MASSING STUDY
25 FEET SHIFT
EXHIBIT
J
EXISTING CONDITION STORY POLES
182
1 Tyler Eaton
From: jaime harnish
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Tyler Eaton; Eric Zicklin; Janet Friesen; scott halley Subject: Fwd: Zumirez
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: jaime harnish
Date: February 16, 2023 at 6:08:28 PM PST
Subject: Zumirez
Please see the proposed house from the public beach.
183
2 Please see the perennial stream wit riparian habitat. 184
3 185
4 186
5 187
6 Sent from my iPhone
188
ATTACHMENT 5
189
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd, Malibu, California 90265-4861
(310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650 www.malibucity.org
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination: 6716 Zumirez Drive – Eric and Dorothy Zicklin On January 22, 2013, staff conducted a primary view determination at 6716 Zumirez Drive .
Staff documented the primary view standing on an outdoor deck, located within ten feet of the exterior wall of the living room, a location chosen by the property owner. The location of the primary view determination photographs were taken from is denoted by a red star in the aerial below.
On January 22, 2013, the view from this location on the property is as follows, from north to south:
ATTACHMENT 6
190
2 191
3 192
4 193
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. ∙ Malibu, California ∙ 90265-4816 Phone (310) 456-2489 ∙ Fax (310) 456-7650 ∙ www.malibucity.org
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination: 6728 Zumirez Drive – Penn Family Trust On December 14, 2022, staff conducted a primary view determination at 6728 Zumirez Drive.
Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.45.050, staff captured the primary view on the patio abutting the living room of the single-family residence, facing southeast, a location chosen by the property owner. The property and recorded view is denoted in the neighborhood map (Exhibit1) below.
Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 6728 Zumirez Drive and recorded view. (Source:
City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
ATTACHMENT 7
194
2 A total of five photographs were captured in sequence from the northeast to the southwest. The nature of the view determination consisted of blue water views of the Pacific Ocean and concern over proposed development at 6734 Zumirez Drive that may block those views. The specific location of the view determination was on the patio abutting the living room, a primary living area. The photos were taken ten feet in front of the living room patio doors at an elevation of five feet. A detailed key map showing the specific location where the view was observed, the 180 degree view axis, and corresponding views are denoted in Exhibit 2 below.
Exhibit 2: Detailed Key Map of the Primary View Determination; 6728 Zumirez Drive (Source:
City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
1 2
3 4
5 195
3 The five photos that combine to reflect the property’s primary view, are provided below.
View 1 –Looking Northeast.
View 2 – Looking East.
196
4 View 3 – Looking Southeast.
View 4 – Looking South.
197
5 View 5 – Looking Southwest.
198
6 View 6 – Photos taken ten feet from the patio doors of the main viewing area (living room).
View 7 – Photos taken five feet from the patio floor.
199
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold public hearings on TUESDAY, February 21, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. on the projects identified below. This meeting will be held via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 and pursuant to AB 361 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s Safer at Home Order. All votes taken during this teleconference meeting will be by roll call vote, and the vote will be publicly reported.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 20-068, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-009, AND DEMOLITION PERMIT NO. 20-028 - An application for the demolition of the existing single-family residence, construction of a new 6,284 square foot single-family residence, basement, 510 square foot attached and 462 square foot detached garage, 471 square foot second unit, pool and spa, cabana, onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development, and a site plan review for construction up to 24 feet in height to allow for a flat roof LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 6734 Zumirez Dr / 4466-002-001 / Rural Residential-One Acre (RR-1) APPLICANT / OWNER(S): Schmitz and Associates, Inc. / IBN Properties, LLC APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: December 29, 2020
CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
For the project identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Director has analyzed this proposed project and found that this 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. 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).
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures.
LOCAL APPEAL – A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action (15 days for tentative maps) for which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – For projects appealable to the Coastal Commission, an aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or 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.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: January 26, 2023 ATTACHMENT 8
200
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: Objecting to Home at 6734 Zumirez
Another for 4B
From: Paul Taublieb <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 7:44 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc:
Subject: Objecting to Home at 6734 Zumirez
Dear Tyler and Richard,
Having viewed the story poles at 6734 Zumirez Drive I would like to express my objection on my behalf, and those of my neighbors, here on Zumirez Drive, to this proposed construction. I live nearby at Zumirez and believe this building will set a horrible precedent for the neighborhood. In addition, building out on top of the ravine and that requires massive moving of dirt and extensive fuel modification in that area will also have a negative impact on what is a sensitive habitat.
Please do not approve the project as proposed and indicated by the story poles - they are up for this exact reason and clearly indicate this home should not be built as-is.
Paul Taublieb & Susan Cooper
Zumirez Drive
Paul Taublieb
TAUBLIEB FILMS/Media-X International, Inc.
[email protected]
310-589-3837 O
C
www.taubliebfilms.com
www.vimeo.com/taubliebfilms
EXHIBIT C
201
From: Planning Commission
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: Fw: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development OPPOSITION Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:30:52 PM
From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
Subject: FW: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development
OPPOSITION
From: Mari Stanley <
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development
OPPOSITION
I forgot what the width of our street is but I well remember that it is the most narrow in relation to the number of homes on the street. Could Planning Mgr or staff member clarify that this evening please? There may be a few other narrow lanes or gated streets such as in gated complexes but none other have the access to the beach that is critical to maintaining a clear thoroughfare for emergency response vehicles at all times, all hours.
Thank you!
Mari Stanley
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mari Stanley <
To: Janet Friesen <
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 at 03:23:44 PM PST
Subject: Fw: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development
OPPOSITION
FYI but of course I had hours stolen to have added my own avg size of residence to strengthen my Neighborhood Character claim. They have to know that it's the most narrow street but I think I'll have to send a follow up to ask them to clarify it with Planning staff...
Mari
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mari Stanley <
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 at 03:18:01 PM PST
Subject: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development OPPOSITION 202
Dear Commissioners,
I want to strongly stress the danger of our street in width and in particular with the frontage area of this proposal and surrounding area. Zumirez is a No Parking street in entirety with clear signage displayed, the development is not only large scale it must fully accommodate visitor and service visits fully within it's own property or seek parking arrangements off site and off street elsewhere DURING CONSTRUCTION as well as after completion of any approved permits that may be achieved. The 6734 property cannot have parking on Zumirez Dr. in the vicinity of the project, period. The location is on a curve that creates visual issues for traffic flow and any parking of vehicles that bring workers, site mgr's or architects and supporting overseers would severely clog the street creating extreme safety disadvantages. It also sits close to the beach gate entrance which serves the residents as a privately owned lot and in that manner we provide access to Emergency Service vehicles as a public service to the community and envelope the California Wildlife Rescue services up to Pt Dume Headlands. We cannot tolerate any potential blocking of the street that would occur if parking is not addressed this evening and made a condition of any permit approvals. I will not tolerate individual development rights to ride over the Public Safety rights of others including visitors that access the sand from Paradise Cove or the marine mammals and other wildlife that are protected by law. This does have precedence given the enforcement actions taken against another development a few driveways from 6734 at which time a very limited few city issued temporary parking permits were allowed for one side of the street only.
All other parking was sourced off Zumirez with transportation provided by developer. Given that 6734 sits squarely on the curve, I ask that there should be zero parking on the street to preserve Public Safety at a maximum. We have other properties on our street in the process of planning and we cannot have our street become a place with no ingress or egress during working hours. I am very protective of our neighbors to the beach side as many well know, original homeowners and former school Principle who is unable to speak on this matter so I will be speaking for him and his lovely wife - they must have the right of public access for emergency vehicles given the length of time of the anticipated construction eating away at their remaining years left on Earth. I've notified them and their extended family that I will do all that I can to insure their safety and I hold the Planning Commission responsible if this is not taken into consideration this evening. All of us on Zumirez will be impacted by the construction noise and dirt although it's the Merriman's peace of mind that I am most concerned for and seek for them to be respected by the current owners of 6734 with full acceptance of my request to require all construction vehicles and deliveries done on site or to arrange for an off site area to minimize the impact of noise, dust, fumes and rumbling of engines for the hearing issues of Mr. Merriman (his hearing loss enhanced his other senses, heightening sound wave impacts) and Mrs. Merriman's own age related issues. These people are true 203
treasures of Malibu, please ensure that the developers treat them with full respect so that we can continue to enjoy seeing them out on the street to enjoy their day or visit neighbors.
I'll also bring up the fact that the house currently sited on 6734 is one of the smaller residences on the street and the home being proposed will fundamentally alter the current Neighborhood Character - going from one of the smallest to arguably one of the largest yet it is not in line with the other properties given the lot size. I'm removing the bluff top properties from this assessment given that the construction of 6830 was presented as a measurement in line with other nearby blufftop properties and residents well remember the city's embrace of the arguments poised by those land planning consultants that achieved the gains sought. I do not see the 6734 site as a bluff top property definition and yet it seems to be trying hard to grow into a bluff top property by it's commanding presence as the far edge of the property that will create light pollution into the gully and across to the residents of Paradise Cove MHP as well as immediate neighboring properties. The height alone makes the proposal a daunting facade and will be easily visible from the sand which may be a safety hazard to the owners given the ease of access through the vegetation to the back of the property and thereby endangering all of the other properties along the back side of Zumirez facing eastward. I prefer that our neighbor properties safety be better protected with a less obtrusive and 'inviting' presence, specifically seeing that the second story will be a deck affording everyone noise and act as a potential attractive nuisance with the Summer crowds that we've been dealing with in past years.
I now want to speak in support of our neighbors that are opposing this project for very good reasons, height/noise/light pollution/setbacks. Both my husband and I stand firmly with the Zicklins, the Penn's, the Friesen's and now I understand the Hilton's also have been vocal of their concerns.
We add our voices to them all and specifically Ms. Friesen given the way the project before you will be looking directly into the Friesen home and backyard - looming over it actually. Their backyard would become an open theater of sorts with all actions normally afforded a family residence on full display. The noise from the rooftop deck will literally fall on the roof and into the yard from simple daily life to say nothing of having any company or a party held at 6734. The Penn property suffered the loss of the matron and that should not be translated to a reduced ownership or reduced rights, I am hopeful that there will be a strong representation this evening and if not we'll just grow more support on the street in memory of Eileen and Leo if/when the project appears before Council. It appears to be designed to take a lot from from neighbors to enrich the one property and that cannot be allowed to proceed without adding my concerns for the people that I call 'chosen family' for the years of coming together in fires, storms, road closures and for all the good times that we've enjoyed - thankfully more of the good stuff than the OMG stuff. This project before 204
you tonight fits more into the OMG category in my view. The development is an obvious flip project as the owners are said to have fully admitted, can't help myself as I don't think a project should be built that consumes all of the available building space and leaves no future owner any room to personalize their home to their tastes. People don't consume alcohol as much as they used to, that wine cellar may be a negative aspect more than an amenity to future buyers...just one aspect of my judging the layout and sneer at the obvious grasping of profits with no qualms as to who is devoured in the consumption of wonderful land that has been kindly treated for generations. We consider ourselves very fortunate to have known the previous owners or two generations of that lovely family.
Beautiful people that helped to shape Malibu, it's sad that someone seeks to unravel all of the good faith that has been rooted in the lot for profits - the prostitution of Malibu is one ugly business.
When will we see better controls of development and the variances that are sought? I think the pushing-the-maximum-to-see-what-theycan-win-mentality is worth sneering at and I ask that all planners involved, planning dept supervisors, manager as well as administrative management at City Hall begin to capture and analyze the estimated costs of city labor in researching the variances and presenting them for review by outside agencies (more public monies consumed!) and Planning Commissioners (free labor but valuable time invested in the community by strong individuals who embrace our Mission AND Vision Statement) - we're being used and we should not take it lying down anymore. Reducing costs is paramount to insure that all of us receive the maximum Public Benefit for the expenditure of Public Funds, far more important to the City's health than to suffer our city staff having to cater to developers and hired land use consultants 'wish lists'! I believe that the burn out that is said to be impacting our planners is in large part for feeling like they are doing worthless work they can't even support but there it is because some are playing with our codes and our staff like game pieces.
Thank you for your time this evening and for all of the hours spent reviewing the agenda items this evening,
Mari Stanley
6XXX Zumirez Dr. (opposite of 6734 - I mourn the potential loss of the small view corridor that we have to check weather and road conditions down coast)
205
From: Planning Commission
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: Fw: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:37:49 PM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Thank you Rebecca.
From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Matt,
Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Commissioners for their consideration.
Rebecca Evans, Recording Secretary
From: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Dear Planning Commission Staff and Mr. Eaton—
Please see attached correspondence on Item 4B (6734 Zumirez Drive/Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068) for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Please also forward this submission to the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you,
Matthew D. Hinks | Partner
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067 D: (310) 201-3558 | F: (310) 203-0567
VCARD | BIO | BLOG | LINKEDIN
206
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com 207
71080984v2
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Matthew D. Hinks
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
March 6, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ([email protected]) City of Malibu Planning Commission
Hon. Dennis Robert Smith, Chair
Hon. John Mazza, Vice Chair
Hon. Kraig Hill
Hon. Jeffrey Jennings
Hon. Skylar Peak
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Re: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068, Site Plan Review No. 21-009, and Demolition Permit No. 20-028 – An application to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence, second unit and associated development (Continued from February 21, 2023)
Dear Chair Smith, Vice Chair Mozza, and Commissioners Hill, Jennings, and Peak:
This office is counsel to IBN Properties, Inc., the applicant for the development project located at 6734 Zumirez Road (the “Project”).
The Staff Report for the Project recommends approval because the Project is fully consistent with all applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program and Malibu Municipal Code. We urge the Commission to support and adopt Staff’s well-reasoned and wellsupported recommendation. We write though to address a few issues that have been raised in recent days that are in need of clarifying.
208
City of Malibu Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
71080984v2
Views from Paradise Cove Beach are irrelevant.
First, the Staff Report states that “the site is visible from the beach” and concludes that the “proposed development would [not] have a significant visual impact from the beach.” (p. 6; see also p. 16 (“The subject property is visible from Paradise Cove Beach; however, the proposed single family residence will not significantly impact public views of the Pacific Ocean and is not anticipated to block views of the Santa Monica Mountains from the beach.”).
The Staff Report’s conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact views from the beach is correct. But the Staff Report is missing the bigger picture that the Commission should be aware of.
Because Paradise Cove Beach is a private beach, the only “public” areas are seaward of the mean high tide line—i.e., the ocean. However, the Coastal Act does not protect views of the coast from off-shore locations. Schneider v. California Coastal Comm’n, 140 Cal.
App. 4th 1339 (2006). Thus, whether or not the Project is visible from Paradise Cove Beach is immaterial and cannot not impact the Commission’s review of the Project.
Schneider involved a proposed single-family home in San Luis Obispo County.
The Coastal Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit. But because the “proposed development would be visible from the ocean,” the Commission imposed conditions requiring that proposed structures be sited at a higher elevation and clustered. Id. at 1342-43.
The Court of Appeal rejected the condition and directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandate commanding the Coastal Commission to set aside its decision and rehear the matter. Id. at 1342. The Court held that the Commission’s “expansive reading of the [Coastal Act] stretches the fabric too thin” and that “it is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature has ever sought to protect the occasional boater’s views of the coastline at the expense of a coastal landowner.” Id. at 1345. The Coastal Act contains no “unwritten policy to protect scenic views of the coast from offshore.” Id. at 1348 (emphasis supplied).
The City’s Land Use Plan (“LUP”) also supports this point. Under LUP section
6.2, places along public beaches are deemed to be public viewing areas and states that, “[t]he LUP Public Access Map shows public beach parks and other beach areas accessible to the public that serve as public viewing areas.” But Paradise Cove Beach is not mapped. The LUP thus does not consider it to be a public viewing area. What’s more, LUP policy 6.4 defines “scenic areas,” but specifically excludes “residential development inland of Birdview Avenue and Cliffside Drive on Point Dume.” Thus, the applicant’s property, by definition, is not a scenic area.
In short, Schneider remains good law and is binding authority in the State of California. Consequently, the Commission does not have authority under the Coastal Act or Local Coastal Program to consider views of the Property from the beach. 209
City of Malibu Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
71080984v2
The Municipal Code does not regulate view impacts from structures below 18 feet.
Second, issues have been raised concerning the impacts of the proposed structures below 18 feet on blue water views. The Staff Report correctly observes that neither the Local Coastal Program nor the Malibu Municipal Code protects blue water views from portions of structures below 18 feet in height.
The Staff Report has it exactly right. Malibu Municipal Code section
17.40.040(A)(17) specifically excludes “the first eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever results in a lower building height” from primary view corridors. It is for that reason that Malibu Municipal Code section 17.62.060 exempts projects proposing structures 18 feet in height or less from site plan review.
While the Project proposes structures greater than 18 feet in height, no blue water views are impacted above the 18-foot level. What’s more, any partial blockages from structures below 18 feet in height may not be considered as doing so would be in direct contravention of the Municipal Code. See City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 2d 236, 250-51 (1959) (administrative officials may not take actions that are inconsistent with municipal ordinances); Land Waste Mgmt. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 950, 958 (1990) (land use permits must be consistent with zoning ordinances; inconsistencies are void and ultra vires).
The Project is plainly subject to a Class 3 Categorical Exemption.
Third, Frank Angel submitted a letter today taking issue with Staff’s determination that the Project is eligible for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a) and (e). Mr. Angel is wrong. A Class 3 exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a) and (e) is available for, “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.”
Mr. Angel suggests that only “small” single-family residences are subject to the exemption, but he is incorrect. Single-family residences are among the class of “small structures” identified in CEQA Guidelines § 15303 as being subject to an exemption. But all single-family residences in residential zones are exempt. In fact, CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a) exempts up to three single-family residences in urbanized areas. In Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 241 Cal.App.4th 943 (2015), for example, the Court of Appeal upheld a Class 3 exemption for a 6,478-square-foot house with an attached 3,394-square-foot 10-car garage—a development larger than the Project.
Thank you for your attention to these points.
210
City of Malibu Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
71080984v2
Very truly yours,
MATTHEW D. HINKS of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
MDH:mh2
cc: Tyler Eaton
211
1 Rebecca Evans
From: jaime harnish >
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Please submit
Thank You.
Sent from my iPhone
212
213
2 From: jaime harnish >
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 1:04 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; ; Eric Zicklin < >; dottie zicklin >; Ryan Levis >; scott halley >
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez dr.
Hi Tyler, I understand from Don Schmidts that the has a letter submitted to the file from a neighbor who supports the project. Can you please send us a copy of that letter or email so we can see who it is and what address their property is at. I believe that it could be a neighbor friend who has no impact from the project. perhaps on the other side of the road. I believe this letter is of public record.
Thank You Tyler
JAIME HARNISH
P.O. BOX 6363
Malibu, CA. 90264
29178 Heathercliff rd.
Malibu, CA. 90265
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 11:12 AM
To: jaime harnish
Subject: Automatic reply: 6734 Zumirez dr.
Out of the office until Monday. Contact [email protected] for general inquiries.
Thank you,
Tyler Eaton
214
1 Planning Commission
From: Cooper Kass <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:10 PM
To: Planning Commission; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Frank Angel; Lake McManus
Subject: Item 4B Janet Friesen/Angel Law Comment Letter Attachments: 2023-03-06 Malibu Planning Commission comment letter.pdf Dear Planning Commission Staff & Mr. Eaton,
On behalf of Janet Friesen, please see aƩached Angel Law’s comment leƩer on Item 4B (6734 Zumirez Drive/Coastal Development Permit No. 20‐068) for tonight’s Planning Commission meeƟng. Please also forward this submission to Dennis Robert Smith, John Mazza, Kraig Hill, and Jeffrey Jennings.
Thank you,
Cooper Kass
_______________
Cooper Kass, Esq. | Associate Attorney
Office: (310) 314-6433
Direct: (310) 314-6473
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Angel Law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
215
A N G E L L AW
2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 - 5 2 6 9
T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 - 6433
a n g e l l a w . c o m
March 6, 2023
City of Malibu
Attn: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Via Email to [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Objections to Staff’s Recommended Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 and CEQA Exemption for 6734 Zumirez Drive Project
Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Eaton:
On behalf of Janet Friesen, the immediate neighbor to the south of the project proposed at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project), we object to approval of the Project as designed and sited, and we take issue with several conclusions made in the February 23, 2023 Commission Agenda Report (Staff Report), in regard to consistency with the Malibu Local Costal Program (MLCP) and the proposed categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) We request that the Planning Commission deny Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 and the CEQA exemption. We request that the City prepare and circulate an initial study under CEQA, not the least to address the MLCP issues and environmental impacts specific to this blufftop development.
Coastal Bluff Determination
The MLCP’s Land Use Plan component (MLUP) requires new blufftop development to “be set back from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion for a projected 100 year economic life of the structure plus an added geologic stability factor of 1.5.” (MLUP Policy 4.27.) The setback must not “be less than 100 feet which may be reduced to 50 feet if recommended by the City geologist and the 100 year economic life with the geologic safety factor 216
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
can be met.” (Id.) Thus, in order to determine a new development’s required setback, the City must make a determination as to what the “bluff edge” is.
Importantly, as we brought to Mr. Eaton’s attention last month, the MLCP’s Local Implementation Plan (MLIP) provides a detailed definition of what constitutes a “bluff edge” in situations where a bluff’s termini are not clean cut: “Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500’) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.” (LIP, § 2.1.) The Staff Report does not acknowledge this definition, nor does it attempt to calculate the bluff edge relative to the subject property.
It is apparent from several pictures included in the Staff Report and looking up at the Project site from the beach below (at the mouth of an unnamed creek) that the site sits atop a bluff curve, part of the bluff directly facing the Pacific Ocean. (See Staff Report at pp. 140, 162, 165-166, 169-170.) The Staff Report dismisses this particular geomorphology in one sentence, stating: “Staff reviewed the project’s geotechnical reports and checked with City geotechnical consultant reviewers and determined that the area of concern, the eastern facing down-sloping portion of the property, is not considered either a coastal or canyon bluff and therefore the bluff setback does not apply.” (Staff Report at pp. 4-5.) However, the City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet attached to the Staff Report (Staff Report at pp. 116-119), completed by Engineering Geology Reviewer Christopher Sexton and Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer Ali Abdel-Haq, does not even mention the word “bluff.” Further, the Staff Report does not provide what it refers to as “the project’s geotechnical reports” supposedly substantiating the “not-a-bluff” determination.
The Staff Report’s only specific reference to any geotechnical report is to one “prepared by Solid Soils & Geologic Consultants, dated August 4, 2020, January 28, 2021, March 26, 2021, and May 12, 2021,” and that reference only occurs in the Staff Report’s section on Hazards, which does not address the bluff determination as required by the MLCP. (Staff Report at p. 17.) There is simply nothing before the Commission, aside from the one conclusory sentence quoted above, to substantiate the “not-a-bluff” determination. The Staff Report concludes that “[f]or the reasons described in this report, including the project site, the scope of work and substantial evidence in the record,” LIP Chapter 10 (the Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance) is not applicable to the Project. What reasons? What substantial evidence? The record contains no MLCP-specific analysis, no explanatory graphics, and nothing in the way of Coastal Commission bluff determination guidance as to how this critical “not-a-bluff” determination was made. 217
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
By making this unexplained determination, the Staff is allowing the Project to skirt the MLIP’s Chapter 10 Required Findings and Analysis (LIP, § 10.3) and Development Standards (LIP, §
10.4). This is an issue especially as concerns the site planning for the pool, pool deck, outdoor dining, outdoor lounge, jacuzzi and fire pit components of the Project, all potentially located in the bluff face descending to the creek, as shown on this excerpt from the project plans:
218
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Hillside Development Standards
The Staff Report downplays Mr. Jamie Harnish’s questions regarding the stream at the bottom of the subject property and the riparian habitat by citing the MLCP’s differential treatment of streams in the Point Dume area: “New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation…However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.” (Staff Report at p. 6; LIP, § 4.6.1(A).) The Staff Report states: “The proposed project avoids 4 to 1 slopes or steeper, which is evident on the applicant’s stamped color-coded slope analysis and geology reports submitted for the project.” (Staff Report at p. 6.) As stated above, there are no geology reports before the Commission and the public. However, a one-page color-coded slope overlay, referred to as a slope “analysis,” is attached to the staff report. (Staff Report at p. 48.) It shows the Project in two colors: Yellow for areas flatter than 4:1, and Green for areas 4:1 and steeper.
But there is no actual analysis explaining how the two categories of gradients (4:1 slope and steeper; gentler than 4:1 slope) were determined and calculated. There is no slope worksheet.
There is no to-scale slope projection, i.e., cross-section showing the total slope area that was considered. There is no determination of the bluff or slope edge, i.e., the upper elevation of the onsite slope area. There is no specification of the horizontal distance (the run) between the contour lines. These omissions are highly problematic given that a substantial portion of the proposed development, including pool and pool deck areas, are sited in the slope below the 102’ elevation, down to the 90’ elevation. Looking at the contour lines on the project plans and the run from the 100’ index contour line or even the 102’ contour line to the lowest onsite elevation mapped, it appears that the onsite slope area has a gradient steeper than 25%, if not 30%.
Furthermore, the Staff Report ignores significant slope-related parts of Chapter 6 of the MLIP, a Chapter which admittedly is applicable to the project. (Staff Report at p. 9.) In its section entitled “Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (MLIP Chapter 6),” the Staff Report fails to discuss the hillside at all. It states: “The Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area.” (Staff Report at pp. 16-17.) That’s part of it, but not the whole story of Chapter 6. The “Applicability” section of Chapter 6 states that “[t]he hillside development standards of this chapter shall apply to properties where the project site includes any area of slope over 20 percent.” (LIP, §
6.2.) By failing to identify, or rule out, Project areas with slopes over 20%, the Staff Report fails to address Chapter 6’s hillside development requirements.
219
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Scenic and Visual Resources Determination
The Staff Report admits that “[t]he subject parcel is visible from Paradise Cove Beach, an MLCP designated scenic area,” and thus discusses the five required findings of MLIP Section 6.4. (Staff Report at pp. 16-17.) In its findings, the Staff Report claims that “although visible from a public beach, there will be no impacts to views of the Santa Monica Mountains.” (Staff Report at p. 16.) Additionally, it claims that because “the proposed single-family residence will not significantly impact public views of the Pacific Ocean and is not anticipated to block views of the Santa Monica Mountains,” the Project “as designed, is sited to eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource policies.” (Staff Report at p. 17.) However, because the Staff Report makes these claims without supporting analysis, the claims are entirely conclusory and unsubstantiated. MLIP Section 6.4 states explicitly that the required “findings shall address the specific project impacts relative to the applicable development standards identified in Section 6.5 of the Malibu LIP.” (LIP, § 6.4(A).) The Staff Report does not mention these development standards.
The Staff Report acknowledges Mr. Ryan Levis’ proposal “to re-site the proposed development 35 feet closer to the street in order to keep it in line with the existing development on the same side of the street.” (Staff Report at p. 6.) Mr. Levis’ proposal may resolve the issue of the Project’s visibility from Paradise Cove Beach, an MLCP designated scenic area. But the Staff Report again discards possible solutions with the bare conclusions that “[t]he project conforms to the LCP and MMC” and “[t]here are no provisions in the code that would require the proposed development to be in line with other development on the same side of the street.” (Id.) In actuality, MLIP Section 6.5 requires new development to “be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent.” (LIP, § 6.5(A)(1).) And, even “[i]f there is no feasible building site location on the proposed project site where development would not be visible, then the development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on scenic areas from scenic highways or public viewing areas, through measures including, but not limited to, siting development in the least visible portion of the site, breaking up the mass of new structures, designing structures to blend into the natural hillside setting, restricting the building maximum size, reducing maximum height standards, clustering development, minimizing grading, incorporating landscape elements, and where appropriate, berming.” (Id.)
Under the MLUP, Paradise Cove Beach is not only a designated scenic area, but also a public viewing area, as it is a “beach[] that offers scenic vistas.” (MLUP Policy 6.2.) Thus, the view from Paradise Cove Beach in the area of the mouth of the creek towards the scenic Santa Monica 220
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Mountains area is impacted by the Project—as stated above, the Staff Report admits the Project’s visibility from Paradise Cove Beach. Then, under MLIP Section 6.5, the development is required to minimize those impacts, and MLIP Section 6.5 explicitly offers measures by which a project can do so. These measures are not supposed to remain dead letters.
Class 3 Categorical Exemption from CEQA Inapplicable
We disagree that the Class 3 categorical exemption the Staff Report cites, set forth in State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15303, subdivisions (a) and (e) applies to the Project.
Categorical CEQA exemptions are reserved for “classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment.” (Guidelines, § 15300.) And CEQA exemption categories must be construed narrowly—they “ ‘are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citation.]” (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 209, 226.) The introductory language of Guidelines section 15303 makes clear that the Class 3 exemption applies only to the construction of “small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” (Emphasis added.)
Parts of the Project are designed to be 24 feet in height, which is 33 percent higher than the City’s 18-foot height limit. The Project’s total development square footage (TDSF) is 7,727 square feet, just short of the maximum 7,760 square feet allowed for this lot. The proposed two-story singlefamily residence with attached garage covers 6,794 square feet on its own. Table 2 of the Staff Report (see Staff Report p. 8) lists four other single-family residences as “Adjacent Land Uses”:
6728 Zumirez Drive, 6725 Zumirez Drive, 6747 Zumirez Drive, and 6744 Zumirez Drive.
Respectively, the residence areas of these four properties amount to approximately 3,116 sq. ft., 2,981 sq. ft., 766 sq. ft., and 2,365 sq. ft. Even cherry-picking the largest of those four, the Project dwarfs it. The proposed swimming pool (62.67 ft. by 18.67 ft.) spans approximately 1,170 square feet. It alone (the pool!) would be larger than one of the adjacent homes.
The Project vastly exceeds the Class 3 categorical exemption for small structures.
Conclusion
We have herein documented several of the Staff Report’s analytical deficiencies and unsupported conclusions in regard to the Project’s compliance with the MLCP. We have also explained how the Project is much too large to reasonably qualify for a Class 3 categorical CEQA exemption. It would 221
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
therefore be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 for the current Project design and the site planning in relation to the bluff or onsite slope area. Additionally, unless Project size is substantially reduced to support application of the Class 3 categorical exemption, all proposed development must undergo CEQA review before progressing any further. At a minimum, the City must prepare and circulate for public review an initial CEQA study. (See Guidelines, § 15063.)
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
Frank Angel
cc: Dennis Robert Smith, Chair
John Mazza, Vice Chair
Kraig Hill
Jeffrey Jennings
222
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:14 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: From Josh Brolin re: 6734 Zumirez Dr Build From: JB >
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: From Josh Brolin re: 6734 Zumirez Dr Build
Dear Richard and Tyler,
First of all, I hope this finds you both well.
It has been brought to my attention that the letter of support I signed for Jason Rouse's build on 6734 Zumirez Dr wasn’t was initially expressed to me. Janet Friesen is a close friend (Jason’s direct neighbor) and I didn’t realize that the build would block a portion of not only her but others existing views, when it could be easily rectified by Jason building about 35 feet back toward the street (Zumirez).
That said, I admittedly made a mistake by not doing my full due diligence and taking him at his word (I should have known better given I don’t know him well). It’s simply a major mistake of mine, and so I would like to retract my letter of support.
Is that good enough?
Having gone through this process, the PTSD that resurfaces with any talk of building, I’m sure is my culprit. I don’t have enough information to support Jason, nor am I an actual neighbor. I hope that he is able to build within the codes but I have no interest in it other than as a friend of the people who will be directly contrasted by what exists now.
Again, hope you both are well and please let me know if I need to do anything else.
Sincerely,
223
2 Josh Brolin
224
1 Planning Commission
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Schmitz and Associates
Subject: Letter of Support for Item 4.B. March 6, 2023 PC hearing: (CDP 20-068) 6734 Zumirez Attachments: Brolin Support Ltr.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom it may concern: Please see the attached letter of support from one of our client's neighbors, Mr.
Josh Brolin.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the senders written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesnt happen in the future and delete the message. 225
226
CDP NO. 20-068
Demolition of the Existing Residence, New SingleFamily Residence, Second Unit, and Associated Development
6734 Zumirez Drive
APN 4466-002-001
March 6, 2023
Planning commission meeting
Item No. 4.B.
227
Legend
Project Site
Vicinity Map
Source: Malibu City GIS 2023
228
Project Description
Scope
1. Construction of a new 6,284 square foot two-story single-family residence with a 986 square foot basement and 510 square foot attached two-car garage;
2. 471 square foot detached second unit;
3. 462 square foot detached two-car garage;
4. Permeable driveway;
5. 42-inch tall solid and up to 6-foot visually permeable front yard fence and vehicular gate;
6. 6-foot solid side yard walls;
7. Swimming pool (62.67 feet long by 18.67 feet wide) and spa (13.33 feet long by 10.67 feet wide) with associated pool equipment (to be fully screened) and decking;
8. Second unit spa (7 feet long by 7 feet wide);
9. New landscaping;
10. 14,076 square feet of new impermeable surfaces;
11. Open-air garden trellises
12. Water features;
13. Retaining walls (not to exceed six feet in height); and
14. Onsite Wastewater Treatment System.
Discretionary Requests
a. SPR No. 21-009 for height exceeding 18 feet, up to 24 feet for a flat roof. 229
Site Plan
Second Unit / Detached Garage
New Single-Family Residence /
Attached Garage
Zumirez Drive
Source: Project Plans 2023
230
Elevations: Main Residence
24’ Above Grade 21’ Above Grade
12’ Above Grade
16’ Above Grade
18’ Above Grade
Source: Project Plans 2023
231
Elevations: Second Unit
12’ Above Grade
11’ Above Grade
Source: Project Plans 2023
232
View Corridor
Source: Project Applicant's View
Corridor Demonstration
Source: Google Earth
233
Primary Views
Source: PVD No. 12-119 Source: Neighbor Correspondence
Reference Point
234
Primary Views
Source: PVD No. 23-001
Areas at 18 feet and below
235
Potential Stream
4.6.1. Buffers
New development adjacent to the following habitats shall provide native vegetation buffer areas to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human intrusion. Buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Vegetation removal, vegetation thinning, or planting of non-native or invasive vegetation shall not be permitted within buffers except as provided in Section 4.6.1 (E) or (F) of the Malibu LIP. The following buffer standards shall apply:
A. Stream/Riparian
New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream.
However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.
236
SUMMARY
ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-11 APPROVING THE
PROJECT CONDITIONED
237
Bluff Definitions
BLUFF EDGE - For coastal and canyon bluffs, the bluff edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500′) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.
CLIFF - any high, very steep to perpendicular or overhanging face of rock, a precipice.
COASTAL BLUFF - a high bank or bold headland, ten feet (10′) or more in vertical extent, with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a body of water. 238
Item 4B
CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
Presentation before the Malibu Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
1 239
Project Designed to Comply with LCP
2 240
Property Not Located in or near LCP-Mapped ESHA
3 241
Property is Highly Disturbed and Developed
4 242
Property is Highly Disturbed and Developed
5 243
Majority of Property Flatter than 4:1
6 244
Slopes Confirmed by Peak Surveys
7 245
Majority of Property Flatter than 4:1
8 246
Overlapping Fuel Modification
9 247
Overlapping Fuel Modification
10 248
Subject Property Qualifies as a Bluff?
11 249
LCP LIP Provides the Following Definition in Chapter 2:
BLUFF EDGE - … Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500′) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations. 12 250
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Coastal Bluff
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Canyon Bluff
251
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Coastal Bluff
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Canyon Bluff
Bluff Termini
Angle Bisected
500’
500’
252
Elevation-Development Pattern Varies
15 6674 Zumirez: 90’
6706 Zumirez: 80’
6716 Zumirez: 84’
6728 Zumirez: 96’
6734 Zumirez: 90’
SUBJECT PROPERTY
6744 Zumirez: 92’
253
LCP LUP Policy 6.2 states:
Places on and along public roads, trails, parklands, and beaches that offer scenic vistas are considered public viewing areas. Existing public roads where there are views of the ocean and other scenic areas are considered Scenic Roads. Public parklands and riding and hiking trails which contain public viewing areas are shown on the LUP Park Map. The LUP Public Access Map shows public beach parks and other beach areas accessible to the public that serve as public viewing areas.
16 254
No Public Beach, Scenic Resource or Scenic Area within the Proximity of 6734 Zumirez
17 255
Project is Located on Zumirez Drive
18 256
LCP LIP Section 6.5(E) states:
…… New development on parcels located on the
ocean side of public roads, including but not limited
to, Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu Road, Broad Beach
Road, Birdview Avenue, Cliffside Drive shall protect
public ocean views.
19 257
View Corridor Exhibit
20 Property Line in Green Property Line in Green
Eyeline in Brown
258
Direction of
View Corridor
ONLY Direction
of Ocean View
100’ Above Mean
Sea Level
100’ Above Mean
Sea Level
259
Direction of
View Corridor
(No Ocean
Views)
Only Direction
of peek a boo
Ocean View
Conclusion: 20% View Corridor would not protect
or continue to provide any ocean views. This is
precisely why the LCP was drafted to only protect
ocean views along roads that ran parallel to the
Ocean with 180 degree ocean views (unlike the
subject site)
260
Project will not Have Any Impact on Public Views
23 261
Proposed SFR Complies with 2/3 Rule
24 1st Story Area: 5,222 sq. ft.
2nd Story Area: 1,572 sq. ft.
2/3 Rule Calc.: 3,499 sq. ft.
2 nd story is = 30%
of the 1st Story
262
House Set Back to Minimize Massing & Visibility
25 142-Foot Front
Yard Setback
360 Feet to
2nd Story
263
House Set Back to Minimize Massing & Visibility
26 142-Foot Front
Yard Setback
360 Feet to
2nd Story
Proposed
View from
Zumirez
264
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
27 29 Properties on Zumirez
within 500-Feet
15 of These Properties
Have 2-Story Homes
265
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
28 List of 2-story Residences
6647 Zumirez
6659 Zumirez
6651 Zumirez
6653 Zumirez
6665 Zumirez
6674 Zumirez
6706 Zumirez
6716 Zumirez
6747 Zumirez
6754 Zumirez
6763 Zumirez
6804 Zumirez
6811 Zumirez
6825 Zumirez
6830 Zumirez
266
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
29 6734
Zumirez
267
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
30 6734
Zumirez
268
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
31 6734
Zumirez
269
2-story Home: 6716 Zumirez
32 270
2-story Home: 6716 Zumirez
33 58% of 1st Story
271
2-story Home: 6754 Zumirez
34 28 Feet Tall
272
PRIVATE VIEW PROTECTION
35 273
MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17) states:
…… The primary view corridor shall exclude the first
eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height
as measured from the existing natural grade or
finish grade whichever results in a lower building
height. ……
36 274
6706 Zumirez
37 No Visual Impacts
From 6706 Zumirez
6734 6706
275
6716 Zumirez
38 View Looking South:
Existing Foliage
6716
6734
276
6716 Zumirez
39 Existing Foliage
277
MMC Section 17.62.060 states:
For purposes of this section, a site plan review may be approved or conditionally approved if the project meets all of the following criteria:
… (2) the portion of the project that is greater than
eighteen (18) feet in height does not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore
islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or
ravines from the main viewing area of any affected
principal residence as defined in Section
17.40.040(A)(17) of this code …
40 278
6716 Zumirez
41 Existing Foliage
13.5 Feet
279
Proposed Section
42 13.5 Feet
280
6728 Zumirez
43 Existing Foliage
6728
6734
281
6728 Zumirez
44 18 Feet
282
Pool Deck design Maximizes Privacy
45 Pool Deck not Visible
From 6716 & 6728
Zumirez
Proposed SFR
Buffers Sound
283
Project will have NO Adverse Impact on Primary Views
46 284
Project will have NO Adverse Impact on Primary Views
47 285
Revised Site Plan
48 Jacuzzi Relocated
To South Property Line
Bedroom, Ground Floor
Lounge & Jacuzzi Removed
Lower Level Stairs
Relocated & Exterior
Ground Level Stairs
Removed
286
Revised Elevation
49 Bedroom, Ground
Floor Lounge
& Jacuzzi Removed
Exterior Ground
Level Stairs Removed
287
Revised Rendering
50 288
6716 Zumirez
51 Existing Foliage
13.5 Feet
289
THANK YOU
52 290
6716 Zumirez
53 Existing Foliage
13.5 Feet
Project Revised So Not Visible from Zicklin Residence
291
Section 17.40.040(A)(17) states:
…… The primary view corridor shall exclude the first
eighteen (18) feet of the proposed building height
as measured from the existing natural grade or
finish grade whichever results in a lower building
height. ……
54 292
6728 Zumirez
55 18 Feet
293
Jamie Harnish Correspondence, March 3, 2023
56 294
Subject Property is North of Janet Friesen’s
Residence
57 Subject
Property
Friesen
Residence
Pacific
Ocean
295
Jamie Harnish Correspondence, March 3, 2023
58 296
Overlapping Fuel Modification
59 297
Overlapping Fuel Modification
60 298
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
61 List of 2-story Residences
6647 Zumirez
6659 Zumirez
6651 Zumirez
6653 Zumirez
6665 Zumirez
6674 Zumirez
6706 Zumirez
6716 Zumirez
6747 Zumirez
6754 Zumirez
6763 Zumirez
6804 Zumirez
6811 Zumirez
6825 Zumirez
6830 Zumirez
299
Project Designed to Comply with LCP
62 300
Neighbors’ Representative Agrees This Project Meets
City Requirements
63 301
CONCLUSION
• Property is Highly Developed and Disturbed
• Proposed Development is Sited on Slopes Flatter than 4:1 • Proposed Residence Not Visible from Scenic Resources or Scenic Areas • No Portion of Development is Located Within Protected Primary Views • No New Fuel Modification Proposed
• Project is Consistent with MMC and LCP
64 302
THANK YOU
65 303
Basement Egress
66 304
2-Story Residences on Zumirez within 500 Feet
67 6734
Zumirez
305
LCP LIP Section 6.5(E)(2)(b) states:
The remaining 20 percent of lineal frontage shall be
maintained as one contiguous view corridor……
68 306
Proposed Site Plan
69 307
View from 6725 Zumirez
70 308
1 Jason Ernst
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Don Schmitz; Tyler Eaton
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Hi Don,
Trying for the first meeting.
Richard
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez May sounds good Richard, thank you! First or second hearing? সহ
Sincerely,
Don
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617‐0773 | Office: (818) 338‐3636
[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse ; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg ; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Hi Don,
309
2 We expect this to go before the Council in June. The reason for that is that is that we are taking applications in order that they are complete, and we already had a number of appeals on the Council’s calendar.
But yes, there is not much that will change if any in our write up.
Richard
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse ; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Good morning gentlemen;
I am writing to inquire on the City Council hearing date for the above‐mentioned project. As I’m sure you will recall, the Planning Commission was deadlocked 2‐2, took no action, and the city attorney advised us and the public that the matter needs to go directly to the City Council. The project has been thoroughly analyzed, and the staff report is already drafted and comprehensive, so it would seem to be a simple matter of changing the title page with a brief description of what happened at the planning commission and getting the matter to the council.
I want to take a moment to thank you for the detailed analysis and recommendation on this project, and we look forward to getting this wrapped up soon at the city council.
Please do let us know what our hearing date is.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617‐0773 | Office: (818) 338‐3636
[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com 310
1 Jason Ernst
From: Frank Angel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Trevor Rusin
Cc: Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Paul Grisanti; Marianne Riggins; Doug Stewart; Steve McClary; Kelsey Pettijohn; Patrick Donegan; Tyler Eaton; Cooper Kass Subject: Project at 6734 Zumirez Drive
Attachments: 2023-04-11 fpa ltr to trevor rusin.pdf
Dear Trevor,
I have been informed by City Clerk Pettijohn that no appeal of the Malibu Planning Commission’s effective denial of the coastal development permit (CDP) application for the above-captioned project was filed with the City Clerk. The Planning Commission heard this matter on March 6, 2023. The 10-day deadline to appeal has long since expired.
Yet, according to Ms. Pettijohn, the CDP application is tentatively scheduled for hearing before the City Council on June 12. Following up on my email to Patrick Donegan on March 6 after the Planning Commission’s action, on behalf of our client Ms. Janet Friesen, I am forwarding attached Angel Law’s formal demand that this CDP application not be placed on the council’s agenda and that the City Council thus refrain from hearing this CDP application. The attached letter explains why. In a nutshell:
The project applicant failed to garner the minimum three votes necessary to obtain approval of the CDP. The Planning Commission was deadlocked 2:2. As explained in the attached letter, California law treats a tie vote on a CDP application as action effectuating denial of the CDP. (REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 596, 607.) The applicant, as any other party aggrieved by CDP action taken by the Planning Commission, had the right to file an appeal within ten days following the Planning Commission’s action, as provided in the Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (MLIP). (MLIP, §
13.20.1 (B).) While this appeal deadline is clearly expressed in mandatory language, the applicant neglected to file any appeal. Therefore, and absent a timely appeal by the City Council itself under MLIP section 13.20.1 (H), any action by the City Council on the CDP application for the project at 6734 Zumirez Drive will be in excess of the council’s jurisdiction. (See State v.
Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 248.) Note that Commissioner Mazza twice put the applicant’s representatives on notice of the applicant’s right to appeal. (City of Malibu, Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2023, YouTube (Mar. 6, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pba4eCojGcA, 3:00 [“You can appeal to the city council”]; see id., 3:04 [“If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the City Council”].) In State v. Superior Court, supra, the California Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, stated that an appellate CDP decision making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where no timely appeal from the decision of the lower body with original CDP jurisdiction was filed. (See also Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 72-74 [injunction affirmed, restraining local legislative body from attempting to grant use permit it had no jurisdiction to grant absent prior approval action by the planning commission].) 311
2 I look forward to hearing from you. Hopefully, this matter can be resolved without the need for court action. The applicant may resubmit their CDP application with the planning department, as is their right under MLIP section 13.23.
If you have any questions, feel free to call to discuss.
Best,
__________________________________________________________ Frank P. Angel | O (310) 314-6433 | C (310) 924-1416
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Angel Law
angellaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 312
ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
angellaw.com
April 11, 2023
Trevor L. Rusin
Malibu City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger
One California Plaza
300 S. Grand Ave,
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Via Email to [email protected]
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 (6734 Zumirez Drive) Dear Trevor:
As you know, Angel Law represents Ms. Janet Friesen, one of several objectors on Zumirez Drive to the single-family residential development proposed by IBN Properties, LLC at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project).
On March 6, 2023, the Malibu Planning Commission heard the application for a coastal development permit (CDP) for the Project. The Project applicant failed to garner a majority of at least three votes necessary to obtain approval of the CDP. The Planning Commission was deadlocked 2:2.
As explained below, California law treats a tie vote on a CDP application as action effectuating denial of the CDP. (REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 596, 607.) No rule in the laws that govern CDPs in the City of Malibu (City) -- the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the Malibu Local Coastal Program (MLCP) -- says otherwise.
Hence, if the applicant disagrees with the Planning Commission’s action, it was incumbent upon them to appeal that action to the City Council. The applicant neglected to do so. As further 313
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
explained below, the applicant’s failure to appeal leaves the City Council without jurisdiction to review or act upon the CDP application for the Project.1 *****
The Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (MLIP) makes clear that, except for administrative or emergency permits, which the Planning Director may decide in the first instance, the Planning Commission is responsible for deciding all CDPs in the first instance, subject to appeal to the City Council (and the Coastal Commission). (MLIP, §§ 13.7, 13.20.1 (A).) Any “aggrieved person” may appeal. (Id., § 13.20.1 (A).) Alternatively, the City Council itself may appeal, upon the affirmative vote of at least three of its members. (Id., § 13.20.1 (H).) “An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days following the date of action for which appeal is made.”
(MLIP, § 13.20.1 (B), italics added.)2 No hearing may be scheduled before the City Council, unless the City Clerk has received an appeal in proper form. (Id., § 13.20.1 (D) [“Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal, the appeal shall be set for the appropriate hearing body”].) On March 28, 2023, that is, substantially more than ten days after the Planning Commission’s March 6 meeting, we learned from the City Clerk (a) that the Project applicant did not appeal; and (b) that notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to appeal and the absence of any appeal by the City Council from the Planning Commission’s action, the Project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on June 12, 2023. This process is fundamentally unlawful and exposes the City Council to legal action for exceeding its CDP jurisdiction under the MLCP and caselaw precedent.
In State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, the California Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, held that an appellate CDP administrative decision-making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where the decision of the lower body with original jurisdiction was not timely appealed. (Id. at p. 248; see Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1448-1449 [a failure to timely appeal a planning commission’s action is tantamount to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; where there is a prescribed procedure for appealing to a city council, that procedure must be followed]; Franklin, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 562 [local permit appeals board held to be without jurisdiction to hear appeal from denial of variance where appeal 1 At this juncture, the applicant is free to reapply with the planning department at the expiration of a twelvemonth period ensuing the Planning Commission’s denial action. (MLIP, § 13.22.) 2 In the context of a deadline to appeal action on a development permit application to an administrative appellate body, the word “shall” is mandatory. (Franklin v. Steele (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 558, 561.) 314
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
was filed 11 days beyond 10-day appeal period]; Samber, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (Mar. 28, 2008, No. D050107) 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2691, at *18-19; id. at *24-25 [if no appeal or call for council review, which Oceanside’s zoning ordinance allows any council member to initiate, is filed within 10 days of a planning commission decision, the decision takes effect, and the city council thereafter has no power to review it]; id. at *36 [“Because no call for review stating the reasons for the review was filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, the decision became effective upon the termination of the appeal period”]; see also Graves v.
Commission on Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976 [an administrative agency “must act within the powers conferred upon it by law and may not validly act in excess of such powers”].)
As is further evident from the above-quoted MLCP provisions, without appeal from the Planning Commission’s action denying the CDP, nothing triggers City Council jurisdiction over the CDP. The City Council’s authority to consider CDP applications derives from the MLCP, and the MLCP nowhere reserves authority in the council to decide CDPs other than pursuant to a timely appeal duly filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s action. An appeal from such action denying a CDP is the only procedural mechanism legally available to a CDP applicant, as the party aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s action, to trigger City Council jurisdiction over the CDP.
Simply put, without an appeal enabling the council to acquire CDP jurisdiction after the Planning Commission has acted, the council has no power to determine the CDP application for the Project Based on the authorities cited in this letter and our client’s due process right to proper CDP procedure -- a procedure certified by the California Coastal Commission when it adopted the MLCP pursuant to legislative mandate codified in Public Resources Code section 30166.5 -- we strongly object to any attempt by the City Council to assume jurisdiction over the CDP application when the applicant has neglected to appeal and there is no legal basis in the Coastal Act and the MLCP, which govern the CDP review process, empowering the council to decide a CDP application, and absent timely appeal by an aggrieved party or by the council itself. Consequently, we demand that the City Council refrain from hearing the CDP application. It is a well-established principle of California law that in the circumstances prevailing here, council action on the application for the CDP -- which would be adjudicatory (i.e., non-legislative) action -- is subject to writ or injunctive relief from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See State v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 248; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 72-74 [injunction affirmed, restraining legislative body from attempting to grant use permit it had no jurisdiction to grant absent prior approval decision by the planning commission]; see San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 720 [courts of equity are justified in issuing injunctive relief to restrain municipal corporations from “acting, or proposing to act, in excess of their jurisdiction”].)
315
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
Next, we offer an in-depth analysis of the legal authorities that compel the conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote is tantamount to action denying the CDP.
The Planning Commission’s Tie Vote Effectuates Denial of the CDP On March 6, 2023, four members of the Planning Commission properly heard the Project-related CDP application. They had a quorum. Three commissioners constitute a quorum. Of course, “ ‘[a] majority of the quorum may decide.’ [Citations.]” (People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington (1883) 63 Cal. 257, 260.) This means at least three yeas were required to approve the CDP for the Project. The applicant garnered only two. Two yeas do not constitute a majority of the quorum present to approve the CDP.
Because the CDP application couldn’t muster the votes necessary for approval, it must be deemed effectively denied. (REA Enterprises, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d at p. 607.) Similarly, when an ordinance does not receive the legally necessary vote for its passage, it is, “in fact, rejected.” (McCracken v.
San Francisco (1860) 16 Cal. 591, 618; accord, Pimental v. San Francisco (1863) 21 Cal. 351, 360-361.) Well-settled parliamentary rules corroborate these court holdings. “On a tie vote, a motion requiring a majority vote for adoption is lost, since a tie is not a majority.” (Roberts et al., Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000), § 44 p. 392.) In REA Enterprises, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (the Coastal Commission’s predecessor) considered a CDP for a residential condominium project. The CDP applicant needed at least seven of 12 votes to secure approval of the CDP. The vote was six in favor and six opposed. (Id. at pp. 602, 606-607.) As in our case, the CDP decision-making body was deadlocked. When it was determined that the tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP, the CDP applicant sued. And lost.
The question before the court of appeal was whether the tie vote resulted in the denial of the permit. (Id. at p. 601.) The court answered this question with a straightforward “yes.” It held:
“Action was taken by the State Commission. REA did not receive the statutorily required number of votes. By failure to obtain a majority vote, the action taken by the State Commission effectuated a denial of the issuance of the development permit. [Fn.]” (Id. at p. 607, italics added.) As is self-evident from this holding, the Planning Commission’s tie vote is action. In fact, the court took pains to make clear that a tie vote at the first level of CDP review by the (former) South Coast Regional Commission, too, would be action denying the CDP:
316
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
“It would be just as fallacious to say that a tie vote by the State Commission did not result in a denial of a permit as to say that such a tie vote at the regional level would not result in a denial of the permit. … The denial is action by the respective commission.” (Id. at p. 607, original italics.) This is significant. Just as the Malibu Planning Commission here, in Rea Enterprises, the regional commission had original CDP jurisdiction.3 The conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP makes the most sense as project applicants have the burden of proof that their projects satisfy the findings requirements upon which permit approval must be premised. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 521; Hauser v. Ventura County Bd. of Supervisors (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 576; see also Vedanta Society of So. California v.
California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 529 [rejecting county counsel’s position that a tie vote constitutes approval of an environmental impact report when findings of approval are mandated by law]; Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825, 838 [because findings of approval are required to sustain approval of tentative tract maps, a tie vote without findings does not approve the proposed subdivision].)4 Clearly, the fact that the Project 3 Following the tie vote, the Planning Commission passed a motion made by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to simply forward the CDP application to the City Council on the ground that the commission was deadlocked. (City of Malibu, Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2023, YouTube (Mar. 6, 2023), 3:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pba4eCojGcA (Hearing Video).) This motion doesn’t change the analysis. The Planning Commission has no power under the MLCP or any other law to compel the City Council to review and act upon CDP applications. It has no power to force the City Council to act outside “the powers conferred upon it by law” (Graves, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at p. 976) or to “act in excess of such powers.” (Ibid.) The council just can’t ignore and violate the CDP appeal procedure mandated by MLIP section 13.20.1. As Commissioner Mazza correctly stated: “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the City Council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04; see id., 3:00 [Commissioner Mazza advising the applicant’s representatives: “You can appeal to the City Council”].) 4 The CDP findings requirements applicable to the Project include the following:
“A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and “B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).
317
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
applicant failed to persuade a majority of three planning commissioners that the Project complies with the MLCP offers further support and constitutes a strong policy rationale for the rule that a tie vote amounts to an effective denial of the CDP.
*****
Original CDP permit jurisdiction properly lies with the Planning Commission, as conceded by the applicant by its participation in the commission’s hearing. The Planning Commission’s tie vote is action effectively denying the CDP. Given the applicant’s failure to appeal this action within the time limit prescribed by the MLCP, the City Council, as a matter of law, lacks CDP jurisdiction over the CDP application. There is nothing for the council to act on. “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the city council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04.) I look forward to hearing from you and hope this matter can be laid to rest without the need for court action. The applicant may reapply for a CDP as provided in MLIP section 13.23.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
cc: Hon. Mayor Bruce Silverstein, via email to [email protected] Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Paul Grisanti, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Marianne Riggins, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Doug Stewart, via email to [email protected] Steve McClary, City Manager, via email to [email protected] Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk, via email to [email protected] Patrick T. Donegan, Assistant City Attorney, via email to [email protected] Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, via email to [email protected] “C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. “D. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.” 318
1 Jason Ernst
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 7:54 AM
To: Richard Mollica
Subject: 6734 Zumirez
Some planƟng proposed past the house but not too far down the slope.
ExisƟng
Proposed
319
2 320
3 Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
Malibucity.org/planning
321
1 Jason Ernst
From: Mari Stanley >
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:29 AM
To: Tyler Eaton; Richard Mollica; Douglas Cleavenger; john mazza; Kraig Hill Subject: Parking on street by 6734 resident - not abiding by No Parking even after the parking of vehicles was a part of the hearing?!?!
Attachments: IMG_2906.JPG; IMG_2905.JPG; IMG_2904.JPG; IMG_2903.JPG I can't even....thought it was maybe a short stint when I first saw the car parked on the street yesterday but it's still there as of the time it took me to walk back to my laptop and send this forward.
Note that it's trash pickup day - the car is parked in a manner to force trash truck to forego pick up of a recycling waste receptacle that is behind the car and two more that are at the neighbors property if they can't manage to angle in close enough with the proximity of the vehicle. I also have a photo showing that the car is a distance from the curb - taking up even more of a very narrow street.
Is this a sign of what's to come once the construction begins??? I will not have it, will not tolerate Schmitz's oversized ego pushing customers to ignore the law and the specific language that was placed on not only that property but others in turn.
I've added a photo of the driveway for two points, first being that there is no clear permit sign AGAIN although it does seem that it's lying down on the ground if someone traipsed up to near trespassing point of private property. Second reason is to show that there is plenty of space to have been able to park on the property itself so it's safe to assume that the parking on the street was deliberate.
Thank you again for your assistance in affirming the No Parking status on Zumirez, I feel that you're doing the best that you can with what you have to work with, Mari Stanley
322
323
324
325
326
1 Jason Ernst
From: Douglas Cleavenger
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:21 AM
To: Schmitz and Associates; Chris Deleau; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Scott Hoeft; Diana Springer; Don Schmitz; Richard Mollica Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thank you
Doug Cleavenger
Code Enforcement Manager
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489, ext. 231
Fax: (310) 456-7650
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
We got the notice reposted today and the signed affidavit is attached. Thank you again for notifying us about this. I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message 327
2 From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 4:40 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thank you Tyler. Let us know when its ready and we will pick up and install.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message.
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Yes we received a complaint which is why code enforcement followed up and not me. I was just informed of this also. I guess the solution is to just put up another sign asap.
I will get one prepared and it will be at the counter by tomorrow.
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Tyler, I know this. We did not remove the notice nor were we aware that it was removed. Our client does not live at the residence so he did not know that it had been removed. Why did you not reach out to me personally to ask why it was missing? To ask that we reinstall it? Why am I getting contacted by Code Enforcement about this?
328
3 Obviously, one of the neighbors took it down. They probably then called Doug to complaint that there was not notice posted. Not cool. But we will rectify that Immediately.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message.
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hi Chris,
The notice needs to stay on the property for the entire length of this process. It is not supposed to be removed until the appeal period ends after a decision is rendered.
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]>
Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Importance: High
Doug, I received your message requesting that we post the green card for the CDP pending at the above referenced property on Zumirez. Please see the attached photo that was submitted to the City, demonstrating that the green card was properly posted.
It was laminated and Zip tied to the fence. No one had requested that we reinstall the green card until you called. We weren't aware it had been taken down (we did not do so). If you need us to install a new one we would be pleased to do so.
If Tyler can provide us a new card we will reinstall.
329
4 Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message.
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:36 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Posted last summer. Mazza saw me.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Benjamin Suber
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Meanwhile, I just posted on site. The notice is at the entrance of the driveway and is visible from Zumirez Drive.
I have a zoomed out photo that I can share if need be. Please let me know if you need anything else as I’m about to get started here soon on the noticing.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thanks Ben,
330
5 I’ll have it ready for you at the counter within the next hour. Appreciate it.
From: Benjamin Suber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hi Tyler,
Intercepting correspondence, I never saw a green placard in my work on this project and if you still have it, I can come down, pick it up and get it posted.
How does that sound?
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:55 AM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hey Chris,
Was the green noticing sign ever posted on the property? If not we’ll need to get this posted asap and return the posting affidavit, attached.
Thanks,
Tyler Eaton
Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
//Malibucity.org/planning
331
1 Jason Ernst
From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 12:19 PM
To: Douglas Cleavenger; Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton
Subject: Illegal parking on street again - SCE truck @ 6734 Zumirez project Attachments: IMG_2962.JPG; IMG_2963.JPG; IMG_2964.JPG
I applaud that they managed to secure the permit sign onto the fence in plain sight but they keep refusing to inform all work at the property to be parking OFF STREET.
Case in point, just came back from a walk to find this truck parked illegally, do not care one whit if they are SCE as utilities do not get an automatic pass for survey or prep work on a project - this is not critical work involving the roadway or traffic signals on a road. 3 photos in total
Thank you,
Mari Stanley
332
333
334
335
1 Jason Ernst
From: Janet Friesen
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:42 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Richard Mollica
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Hi
I just signed up to make the requests
Thank you,
Janet
Janet Friesen
On Jun 16, 2023, at 3:59 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Janet,
I apologize for my delay I am pretty behind. Please do a public records request here: https://cityofmalibuca.nextrequest.com/ and a member of our team will get you all the documents you need.
Have a great weekend.
Tyler
From: Janet Friesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Hi
336
2 Can I request a geology report for 6734 Zumirez as well as an architectural plan which includes a topographic drawing.
I would like to show it to my geologist.
Thank you so much,
Janet
Janet Friesen
On Apr 14, 2023, at 8:44 AM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
If you would like more than just the biological documents, such as geology reports, then you can request all specialist reports and department reviews/approvals for the project.
The reason I was clarifying is because environmental report in the planning world usually refers to a CEQA document such as an environmental impact report which was not required for this project. -----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:32 AM
To: Janet Friesen <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Hi Janet,
By environmental report do you mean the biological documents submitted for this project? You'll have to do a public records request here:https://malibucity.org/records
I would ask for any biological related documents for the said project when you submit the request. Someone from our staff will get back to you and help you access the documents.
Thanks,
Tyler
337
3 -----Original Message-----
From: Janet Friesen
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Hi Tyler
Can you please forward me the environmental report that was done for 6734 Zumirez Dr?
Please advise
Thank you
Janet
Sent from my iPhone
338
1 Jason Ernst
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 10:19 AM
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Chris Deleau
Subject: 6734 Zumirez, CDP 20-058: Still on for 8/14?
Hi Tyler,
I hope you had a FantasƟc 4th of July! In the meanƟme, I was wondering a few things on 6734 Zumirez. First, are we sƟll on track for an 8/14 City Council hearing? Second, regardless of answer, I assume noƟcing informaƟon will need to be updated, correct? (If so, I’ll jump on it asap)
Thank you in advance and I hope you have a fantasƟc rest of your day! (Happy 7 days!) Benjamin Suber
GIS Manager and Planner, Schmitz and Associates
747.444.6081
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. 339
1 Jason Ernst
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 5:35 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez
Absolutely not. Not sure where you heard that but its bad 411.
We are ready to move forward to hearing. Thanks.
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 5:20 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez
Hi Chris,
We were told that your team want to push this item to an October Council agenda. Can you confirm that is correct? Thanks,
Tyler Eaton
Senior Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
//Malibucity.org/planning
340
1 Jason Ernst
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 3:49 PM
To: Chris Deleau
Cc: Richard Mollica; Adrian Fernandez; Raneika Brooks; Don Schmitz Subject: RE: Correspondence on pending application for 6734 Zumirez Chris, as I’m sure you know, it’s best to do a public records request for this type of informaƟon. However, I believe our admin shared a link for you to review the correspondence since the last meeƟng.
Also, the informaƟon I requested sƟll hasn’t been submiƩed. We need a revised story pole cerƟficaƟon since there was complaints from the last Ɵme.
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 2:54 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Correspondence on pending application for 6734 Zumirez Importance: High
Tyler, Following up again on the below. Look forward to your response.
Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Chris Deleau
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Correspondence on pending application for 6734 Zumirez Importance: High
Tyler, just following up on the below request. I heard you may have received some correspondence? 341
2 Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Chris Deleau
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence on pending application for 6734 Zumirez Importance: High
Tyler, just following up to see if there have been any new correspondence related to the project.
Thanks,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. 342
1 Jason Ernst
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 5:44 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Richard Mollica; Don Schmitz; Schmitz and Associates; Scott Hoeft; Hinks, Matt; Jason Rouse; Ken Adelberg; Adrienne Coryell; Diana Springer
Subject: Fw: 6734 Zumirez for Monday's Meeting
Attachments: Bluff Exhibit.pptx; 201120_IBN_ZMRZ_CDP_UPDATE 230303.pdf Importance: High
Tyler,
Coastal Bluff Determination
Please find attached the exhibit that shows where the coastal bluff terminates We have gone 500' in both directions and bisected the angle as per the process outlined in the code (see PowerPoint slides). Per the attached bluff exhibit, we have demonstrated that the project is not located on a Coastal Bluff and therefore the development standards applicable to coastal bluffs do not apply to the subject property.
Revised Plans to Address Neighbor Concerns
We have been in discussions with our neighbors and have listened to their concerns. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant's project was designed in complete conformance with the LCP and MMC, our client has voluntarily agreed to reduce the massing of the proposed residence in order to minimize the structures partial blockage of blue water views BELOW 18' in height (which is not protected under code as noted in the staff report).
Accordingly, the applicant has made the following plan modifications:
Remove lower-level bedroom beneath the spa and reduce lower-level footprint by several hundred feet from 1074 sq. ft. to 754 sq. ft.
Remove spa and deck above bedroom to provide further privacy for neighbors (Note: This completely removes ANY view of the structure as viewed from the Zicklins' house/ PVD. The Zicklins will no longer be able to see any portion of the applicants house (whether above or below 18' in height). This will also take the spa completely out of view of the Penn Residence and significantly reduce residence and pool/spa deck area. Almost all of the pool deck will now be tucked behind the house to the South and will not be visible from any neighbor's house.
Remove exterior stairway communication from Master Suite to Main Level entirely to reduce the massing of the house along the northern elevation to provide greater privacy for the Penn Residence. Relocate interior stairway communication between lower level to main level (required since we deleted the lower-level bedroom).
343
2 Thes changes completely address the concerns raised by the Zicklins. Moreover, these changes also significantly reduce the size and massing of the development along the northern elevation shared with the Penn residence. Relocation of the Spa addresses a key concern of the Penns.
These changes are all being proposed "within" the existing footprint of the project and result in a net reduction of TDSF and impermeable lot coverage. We have "Shrunk" the project down. These changes do not result in any new grading or hardscaping and do not result in any increases to fixture counts, etc. I.e., there is no need for any additional review by City Departments.
Public Beach/ Views
The staff report states that the project is visible from a nearby public beach. This is not accurate. Paradise cove beach is a private beach owned by the Paradise Cove Land Company, LLC. I wanted to correct this fact for the record. Below please find a map showing the beach to be privately owned. The only possible public view would be from the Ocean (seaward of the mean high tide line) to the land. In this respect it should also be noted that neither the Coastal Act nor the LIP regulates views from the ocean towards the land (see Schneider v. California Coastal Commission, B186149).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Have a nice weekend. 344
3 345
4 Best Regards,
346
5 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message. .
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez for Monday's Meeting
Hi Chris,
Can you prepare an exhibit for the following so that the Commission may discuss Monday:
BLUFF EDGE - For coastal and canyon bluffs, the bluff edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500′) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.
Please prepare an exhibit regarding this definition.
Thanks,
347
LCP LIP Provides the Following Definition in Chapter 2:
BLUFF EDGE - … Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500′) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations. 1 348
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Coastal Bluff
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Canyon Bluff
349
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Coastal Bluff
90’ Elevation Contour Line:
Canyon Bluff
Bluff Termini
Angle Bisected
500’
500’
350
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE COVER SHEET PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT T-1.1 AS NOTED ADDITIONAL ADJUSTABLE ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ABOVE RAISED FLOOR AIR CONDITIONING ALTERNATE ARCHITECT (URAL) AREA DRAIN BLOCKING BOARD BUILDING CABINET CEILING CENTER CENTER LINE CERAMIC TILE CLEAR CONCRETE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CONTROL JOINT DIAMETER DIMENSION DOUBLE DOUBLE HUNG DOWN DRAWING ELECTRIC ELECTRIC PANEL ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE ENGINEER EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXISTING EXTRUDE OR EXTRUSION FABRICATE(ED) FINISH FIXTURE FLOOR FLUORESCENT FOOT FRESH AIR INTAKE (OR INLET) FURNISH(ED) FURRING GALVANIZED GAUGE GROUND GYPSUM BOARD HEIGHT HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HOT WATER INSIDE DIAMETER ADD'L. ADJ. A.F.F. A.R.F. A/C ALT. ARCH. A.D. BLKG. BD. BLDG. CAB. CLG. CTR. C.L. C.T. CLR. CONC. C.M.U. CONST. CONT. C.J. D.I.A.. DIM. DBL. D.H. DN. DWG. ELECT. ELECT. PNL. ELEV. ENCL. ENGR. EQ. EQUIP. EXIST. EXTR. FAB. FIN. FIXT. FL. FLUOR. FT. F.A.I. FURN. FUR. GALV. GA. GRND. GYP. BD. HT. H.M. HORIZ. H.W. I.D. JOINT MANUFACTURE MANUFACTURER'S MATERIAL MAXIMUM MECHANICAL METAL MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE NUMBER ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OPENING PAIR PERFORATED(ED) PIECE/PIECES PLANTER AREA QUANTITY RADIUS REFERENCE REFRIGERATOR REINFORCE/REINFORCING REQUIRED RETURN AIR ROUGH OPENING SHEET SIMILAR SOUTH SMOKE DETECTOR SPEAKER SPECIFICATIONS SPRINKLER HEAD SQUARE STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD STEEL STRUCTURAL TELEPHONE TELEVISION TEMPORARY TONGUE AND GROOVE TYPICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VERTICAL VINYL COMPOSITION TILE WITH WITHOUT WOOD JT. MFR. MFR'S. MATL. MAX. MECH. MTL. MIN. MISC. NN.I.C. N.T.S. NO. OR X O.C. O.D. OPG. PR. PERF. PC./PCS. P.A. QTY. RAD. REF. REFRIG. REINF. REQ. R.A. R.O. SHT. SIM. SS.D. SPKR. SPECS. S.H. SQ. S.S. STD. STL. STRUCT. TEL. TVTEMP. T. & G. TYP. U.O.N. VERT. V.C.T. W/ W/O WD. 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 March 03, 2023 DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS PROJECT TEAM OWNER ARCHITECT LAND SURVEYOR CIVIL ENGINEER GEOLOGIST GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OWTS ENGINEER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F, Calabasas CA 91302 US Warren Garrett 311 North Robertson Blvd, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90211 315 Place d' Youville, Suite 268, Montreal, Canada APPLICABLE CODES N / A N / A N / A EXISTING: 1991 SQ FT T.D.S.F. CALCULATION MATH PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,991 SQ FT HOUSE AND GARAGE - PROPOSED NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE - NEW GUEST HOUSE - NEW DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAYS WITH ASSOCIATED GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND RETAINING WALLS - NEW SWIMMING POOL/ JACUZZI AND DECKS - NEW OUTDOOR GARDENS OPEN TO THE SKY WITH LANDSCAPE - NEW AOWTS ZONING 2002 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH AMENDMENTS BUILDING CODE LA COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 2017 EDITION ELECTRICAL CODE LA COUNTY ELECTRICAL CODE, 2017 EDITION PLUMBING CODE LA COUNTY PLUMBING CODE, 2017 EDITION MECHANICAL CODE LA COUNTY MECHANICAL CODE, 2017 EDITION ADDITIONAL CODE LA COUNTY RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2017 EDITION ADDITIONAL LA COUNTY ENERGY CODE, 2017 EDITION PLANNING PERMIT TYPE DISCRETIONARY REQUESTS LEGAL PROJECT ADDRESS A.P.N. LCP ZONING 4466-002-001 RR-1 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 DEFERRED SUBMITTAL Deferred submittal documents shall be submitted to the architect or engineer of record, who shall review them and forward them to the building official with a notation that they have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with the design of the building or structure. The deferred items shall not be installed until their design and submittal documents have been reviewed and approved by the building official. ABBREVIATIONS Zumirez VICINITY MAP SYMBOL LEGEND SHEET INDEX PROPOSED: 7616 SQ FT EXISTING: 17'-0" PROPOSED: 23'-11" AREA 2/3RDS RULE ANALYSIS BUILDING HEIGHT FIRST FLOOR AREA (LOWER FLOOR, GROUND FLOOR AND ATTACHED GARAGE): 5111 SQ FT 2/3RD CALCULATION: 5111 x 2/3 = 3407 SQ FT PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA (UPPER FLOOR) = 1572 SQ FT < 3407 SQ FT PARKING IMPERMEABLE SURFACE ANALYSIS TOTAL ALLOWABLE: 7760 SQ FT (21780 x 0.177) + (21780 x 0.1) + (14533 x 0.05) + 1000 = 7760 SQ FT 58093 x 0.3 = 17428 SQ FT ALLOWABLE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS SETBACK ANALYSIS LOT DEPTH: 592' LOT WIDTH: 98'-4" LOT AREA: GROSS LOT AREA: NET 58093 SQ FT 58093 SQ FT SETBACK MINIMUM EXISTING PROPOSED FRONT YARD 10% SIDE YARD 15% SIDE YARD REAR YARD 65' 9'-10" 14'-9" 275' 21'-4" 15'-4" 142'-5" 10' 15'-1" APPLICANT Schmitz & Associates 28118 Agoura Rd. Suite 103 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Land & Air Surveying 22741 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400A, Malibu, CA 90265 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Girvin & Associates 444 Magnolia Ave STE 200, Larkspur, CA 94939, United States EXISTING FOOTPRINT: 1991 SQ FT EXISTING HARDSCAPE: 1965 SQ FT PROPOSED FOOTPRINT: 5009 SQ FT PROPOSED HARDSCAPE: 9208 SQ FT EXISTING: 2 ENCLOSED, 2 OFF STREET PROPOSED: 4 ENCLOSED, 2 UNENCLOSED PROPOSED AREA TABULATION PROPOSED IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE PROPOSED PERMEABLE COVERAGE LANDSCAPE A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS PROPOSED WITH THIS PROJECT GRADING PLAN SEE GRADING PLAN COVER SHEET FOR CUBIC YARD CALCULATION AND ADDITIONAL DETAILS OCCUPANCY GROUP R-3 / U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VB NUMBER OF STORIES 2 Plus Basement FIRE ZONE VHFHSZ (Zone 4) SPRINKLERED Yes Per LACO Fire Code NORTH ARROW BUILDING ELEVATION / SECTION N ELEVATION DATUM TYP. DOOR SCHEDULE SYMBOL TYP. WINDOW SCHEDULE SYMBOL INTERIOR ELEVATION FLAG DETAIL CALL OUT GRAVEL STONE CONCRETE GRID LINE SYMBOL MAIN RESIDENCE TDSF: 6173 SQ FT (LOWER FLOOR: 754 SQ FT GROUND FLOOR: 3847 SQ FT UPPER FLOOR: 1572 SQ FT) MAIN RESIDENCE GARAGE: 510 SQ FT GUEST HOUSE: 471 SQ FT GUEST HOUSE GARAGE: 462 SQ FT PROPOSED T.D.S.F.: 7616 SQ FT BASEMENT (EXCLUDED FROM T.D.S.F CALCULATION): 986 SQ FT E-1 A 2.1 101AD1 A 6.1 1 GENERAL T-1.1 COVER SHEET T-1.2 ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY T-1.3 COLOR CODED SLOPE PLAN F1 OF 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS PLAN ARCHITECTURAL A-0.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-0.2 SITE PLAN EXHIBIT A-0.3 IMPERMEABLE / PERMEABLE COVERAGE A-0.4 COLOR CODED SLOPE ANALYSIS OVERLAY WITH SITE PLAN A-1.1 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR AND BASEMENT PLAN A-1.2 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN A-1.3 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN A-1.4 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A-1.5 GUEST HOUSE - PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN A-1.6 GUEST HOUSE - PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A-2.1 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1, 2 & 3 A-2.2 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 4 & 5 A-2.3 GUEST HOUSE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 6, 7, 8, 9 &10 AND FRONT GATE A-3.1 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED SECTIONS A-A & B-B A-3.2 MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED SECTIONS C-C & D-D A-3.3 GUEST HOUSE - PROPOSED SECTIONS E-E & F-F A-4.1 TDSF & 2/3RDS EXHIBIT PAGE 1 A-4.2 TDSF & 2/3RDS EXHIBIT PAGE 2 A-4.3 TWO STORY & BASEMENT EXHIBIT B C A D Ahsirt Engineering 360 Miller Way, Arroyo Grande, CA 93429 Solid Soils & Geologic Consultants, Inc. 106 San Marino Avenue, Ventura, CA 93003 BUILDING FOOTPRINT (MAIN HOUSE, GUEST HOUSE, ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE): 5009 SQ FT DECKS AND WALKWAYS (STONE PAVERS AND CONCRETE): 7446 SQ FT RETAINING AND LANDSCAPING WALLS AND OUTDOOR STRUCTURES: 1762 SQ FT TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE: 14217 SQ FT < 17428 SQ FT POOL / JACUZZI / WATER FEATURES: 1866 SQ FT WALKWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS (GRAVEL): 12651 SQ FT WALKWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS (STONE PAVERS): 258 SQ FT PLANTING: 17163 SQ FT TOTAL PROPOSED PERMEABLE COVERAGE: 31938 SQ FT 88'-10" 215'-8" 150' CIVIL G1 OF 4 PROJECT INFORMATION, EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN G2 OF 4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN G3 OF 4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN G4 OF 4 EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND LOCAL SWPPP LANDSCAPING L1.1 LAYOUT & MATERIAL PLAN L1.2 LAYOUT & MATERIAL PLAN L1.3 LAYOUT & MATERIAL PLAN L2.1 EXISTING TREE & SHRUB PROJECTION PLAN L2.2 EXISTING TREE & SHRUB PROJECTION PLAN L2.3 EXISTING TREE & SHRUB PROJECTION PLAN L3.0 PLANTING LEGEND AND NOTES L3.1 TREE PLANTING PLAN L3.2 TREE PLANTING PLAN L3.3 TREE PLANTING PLAN L4.1 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN L4.2 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN L4.3 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN L5.0 FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN NOTES L5.1 FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN L5.2 FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN L5.3 FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN L6.1 IRRIGATION PLAN L6.2 IRRIGATION PLAN L6.3 IRRIGATION PLAN L6.4 IRRIGATION LEGEND L6.5 IRRIGATION LEGEND L6.6 IRRIGATION NOTES L6.7 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.8 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.9 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.11 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.12 IRRIGATION DETAILS L6.13 IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS L6.14 IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS L6.15 IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS L7.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTING HYDROZONE MAP L7.2 LANDSCAPE PLANTING HYDROZONE MAP L7.3 LANDSCAPE PLANTING HYDROZONE MAP 3D VISUAL - WEST ELEVATION CDP WITH SPR FOR FLAT ROOF OVER 18’ UP TO 24’ MAX SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HEIGHT UP TO 24' (FLAT ROOF) EXTERIOR LIGHTING CODE WILL CONFORM WITH THE CITY OF MALIBU DARK SKY ORDINANCE 351
82'
84'
86'
88'
90'
92'94' 96' 98' 100'
102'
104' 106' 108' 104'
82'
84'
86'
88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100'
102'
100' 80' 78' 76' 74' 72' 68' 66' 64' 62' 78' 76' 74' 72' 68' 66' 64' 70' 62' 58' 56' 54'
58'
56'
54'
52'
48'
46' 44' 42' 92' 94' 96' 98' 90' 106' 106' 106' 106' 104' LOT LENGTH REQUIRED 15% SIDE YARD SETBACK 30' 20'-11" 69'-5" 2'-1" 8' 17'-4" 7'-1" 32'-2" 10' 5' 9'-8" 21'-4" 8' 21'-4" 2'-8" 10'-9" 2'-8" 10' 16'-10" 75' 21'-8" 50'-4" 3'-4"4'-6" 1' 1' 1' POOL GARAGE JACUZZI OUTDOOR LOUNGE GARDENER ENCLOSURE OPEN TO THE SKY 13'-8" OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY 16'-10" +3'-0" +104' +3'-0" +104' +6'-0" +107' +3'-0" +104' +5'-0" +106' -2'-6" +98.5' 9'-10" 65' 592' REQUIRED 10% SIDE YARD SETBACK 15'-1" 9'-3" 22'-4" 6'-10" 19'-6" 50'-2" 25'-9" 12'-6" 44' 7'-2" 22' 23'-2" 10'-6" 10'-4" 5'-2" 9'-2" 18' 8' 13'-10" 21'-8" 10'-2" 21'-8" 59'-4" 14'-9" 22'-5" 69' 10'-9" 6' 14'-6" 10'-2"8'-6" 6'-6"4'-8" 8' 2' 6'-9" 4'-1" 7'-8" 59'-3" 20' 8' 76'-10" SECOND UNIT POOL DECK GARAGE BBQ AREA GRAVEL DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +8'-6" (109'-5") (N.G. 106') 6' STUCCO RETAINING WALL 6' STUCCO RETAINING WALL BBQ OUTDOOR DINING OPEN TO THE SKY 333'-10" 366'-10" OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY +3'-0" +104' +6'-0" +107' +1'-6" +102.5' WATER FEATURE 1' OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR LOUNGE OUTDOOR LOUNGE WITH FIRE PIT 6' HIGH GATE (90% PERMEABLE TO LIGHT AND AIR ABOVE 42") 70' 20' 26' 142'-5" PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK 15'-2" HAMMER-HEAD TURN-AROUND FIGURE A 10' 66'-10" 18'-5" 12'-10" JACUZZI SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK 6' HIGH WALL (90% PERMEABLE TO LIGHT AND AIR ABOVE 42") 6' HIGH WOOD TRASH ENCLOSURE & DOUBLE GATES 2' 29'-2" 2' 3'-5" 41'-3" 20' 25'-6" 4' 5'-9" +6'-0" +107' +6'-0" +107' +3'-0" +104' STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS +6'-6" +107.5' WATER FEATURE WOOD TRELLIS WATER FEATURE +2'-6" +103.5' TRASH BINS PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PAPA PA PA PA PA PA FIRE PIT +1'-6" +102.5' -12'-0" +89' 30' WATER FEATURE OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY WATER FEATURE STONE PAVERS PA +5'-4" +106.3' CONCRETE SERVICE PATH CONCRETE SERVICE PATH STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WATER FEATURE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY +2'-6" +103.5' -7'-0" +94' WALL EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') PA GRAVEL BLDG RESTRICTION AREA PER BOOK 21578, PAGE 219 & 5' SO CAL EDISON EASEMENT PER DOC # 3034 O.R 5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT PER BOOK 21594, PAGE 387 BLDG RESTRICTION AREA PER BOOK 21578, PAGE 219 5' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT PER BOOK 21594, PAGE 387 PA PA PA PA GRAVEL GRAVEL WALL EL: -3'-6" (+97.5') PA PA WATER FEATURE FENCE FENCE 7'-8" 16' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' +3'-0" +104' 23' PA SECOND UNIT OUTDOOR GARDEN FENCE +7'-0" +108' +2'-6" +103.5' WALL EL: +2'-6" (+103.5') WALL EL: +6'-0" (+107') -0'-6" +100.5' +2'-6" +103.5' +3'-0" +104' +3'-0" +104' -11'-0" +90' STONE PAVERS LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +11'-0" (112') LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +14'-6" (115.5') LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +14'-6" (115.5') 14'-9" LOT WIDTH PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK 98'-4" 88'-10" REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK 6' HIGH WALL (90% PERMEABLE TO LIGHT AND AIR ABOVE 42") *Existing Railroad Ties, Mailbox post and other private site improvements within City right of way to be removed and relocated 96'-6" PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION PROPOSED 100% BOX EXPANSION SEEPAGE PITS PROPOSED 6'x45' SEEPAGE PITS PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK MAIN RESIDENCE R337.8.2.1 Exterior windows, skylights and exterior glazed door assembly requirements. Exterior windows, skylights and exterior glazed door assemblies shall comply with one of the following requirements: 1. Be constructed of multipane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the requirements of Section R308 Safety Glazing, or 2. Be constructed of glass block units, or 3. Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or 4. Be tested to meet the performance of SFM Standard 12-7A-2. R310.2 Emergency escape and rescue openings. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum dimensions as specified. R310.21 Minimum opening area. Emergency and rescue openings shall have a net clear opening of not less than 5.7 square feet. The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside. The net clear height of the opening shall not be less than 24 inches and the net clear width shall not be less than 20 inches. Exception: Grade floor openings or below-grade openings shall a net clear opening area of not less than 5 square feet. R310.2.2 Window sill height. Where a window is provided as emergency escape and rescue opening, it shall have the bottom of the clear opening not greater than 44 inches measured from the floor, where the sill height is below grade, it shall be provided with a window well in accordance wit Section R310.2.3 POOL EDGE PARKING MECH. AND POOL EQ. ENCLOSURE MAX H=6' TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR 5'-8" 72'-10" 33'-8" 8'-6" -11'-0" +90' PA WALL EL: -0'-6" (+100.5') 150' WALL EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED LOWER LEVEL STAIRS RELOCATED UNDER FOOTPRINT OF GROUND FLOOR AND EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED JAZUZZI RELOCATED PROPOSED BACK YARD SETBACK ADJUSTED FROM 139'-6" TO 150' THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1" = 20' A-0.1 N 352
82' 84'86'88' 90' 92'94' 96' 98' 100' 102' 104' 82' 84'86'88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100' 100' 102' 74' 76'
78' 92' 94' 96' 98' 90' UP UP UP FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE POOL EDGE ABOVE WALKWAY ABOVE WALKWAY ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE LOT LENGTH
LOT WIDTH
REQUIRED 15%
SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIRED 10%
SIDE YARD SETBACK EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT 592' 14'-9"
9'-10"
10'
5' 5'
5' 5'
PROPOSED
SIDE YARD SETBACK DECK ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE RETAINING WALL ABOVE RETAINING WALL ABOVE WALKWAY ABOVE WATER FEATURE ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE 2'-2" 18'-8" 2'-2" 5' 8" POOL ABOVE 1'-6" 30' E-04 A 2.2 E-01
A 2.1
E-03 A 2.1 E-02 A 2.1 E-05 A 2.2 A-A A 3.1 A-A A 3.1
D-D
A 3.2
D-D
A 3.2 B-B A 3.1 B-B A 3.1 C-C A 3.2 C-C A 3.2 WATER FEATURE ABOVE LANDSCAPE WALL ABOVE LANDSCAPE WALL ABOVE SETBACK SETBACK 33'-6" WATER FEATURE ABOVE 6' 20'-4" 7'-8" 4'-6" 25'-6" 16' 8'-8" 8" 24' 4' 3'-10" 8" 21'-8" 6'-4" 6" 3'-8" 6" 6'-6" 8' 8" 8" 3' 6" 8" 1' 8" 3' -12'-0" +89' MAIN RESIDENCE - LOWER FLOOR POWDER ROOM 01 ENTERTAINMENT ROOM TOILET 01 466 SQ. FT. 21 SQ. FT.73 SQ. FT. 17'-8" 7'-2" 8" MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE MAX 6ft 7'-6" 4'-9" N.G. 92.53' N.G. 90.84' N.G. 89.9' N.G. 90.19' N.G. 91.77' N.G. 92.09' N.G. 98.69' 6'-10" 5' 5' 5' 8" STONE PAVERS 98'-4" FOOTPRINT GARAGE ABOVE -11'-0" +90' OUTDOOR SHOWER MECHANICAL ROOM AND POOL EQUIPMENT MAX 6ft 8" 13'-4" 8" 34'-10" 8" 43'-6" 158 SQ. FT. UP EMERGENCY EGRESS LIGHTWELL BAR 8" -14'-7" +86.4' PROJECTION ROOM 347 SQ. FT. BASEMENT 30' 4' 3' 4'-1" 19'-2" 8" 18' 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 4'-11" 14' 4' 10' 10'-8" 8'-6" 6" 5'-8" 8'-2" 2' 18'-6" 6" 34' 13'-2" 5'-6" 6" 5' 6" 4'-6" 6" 3' 6" 6'-2" 6" 3' 6' 8" 8" 6" 4'-8" 8" SPA 162 SQ. FT. 3'-2" 6" 1'-6" 9' 5'-2" SHOWER AREA 28 SQ. FT. SAUNA 50 SQ. FT. BASEMENT BATHROOM 28 SQ. FT. TOILET 04 20 SQ. FT. HALLWAY 02 25 SQ. FT. 6" 5'-8" 9' 6" 19'-8" 1'-6" UP WALK IN SHOWER 33 SQ. FT. LOWER LEVEL STAIRS 129 SQ. FT. 3'-10" 8" 8" 7'-8" 8" 1' 1' 4'-8" 11'-8" 31'-8" 6'-4" 11' 4' 11' 4' 8" 8"8" 1'-9" 3' -11'-0" +90' -12'-0" +89' 4' -11'-0" +90' 7'-8" 1' 2' OUTDOOR LOUNGE WITH FIRE PIT TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR (NOT TO BE ENCLOSED) 65.7 SQ FT 16'-8" 16'-11" LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED LOWER LEVEL STAIRS RELOCATED UNDER FOOTPRINT OF GROUND FLOOR THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR AND BASEMENT PLAN PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" A-1.1 N 353
82' 84'86'88' 90' 92'94' 96' 98' 100' 102' 104' 82' 84'86'88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100' 100' 102' 74' 76'
78' 92' 94' 96' 98' 90' UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP 6.0000 7'-1"
32'-2"
73'-7"
20' OVERHANG +3'-0" +104' +3'-0" +104' +1'-6" +102.5' WATER FEATURE DEPTH NOT TO EXCEED 18" WATER FEATURE DEPTH NOT TO EXCEED 18" OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR LOUNGE POOL VARIABLE DEPTH JACUZZI BBQ AREA LANDSCAPE WALL GARAGE LOT LENGTH REQUIRED 15%
SIDE YARD SETBACK -2'-6" +98.5' EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT LIGHTWELL 10'
10' 23'-2"10' 18' 1'-6" 21'
20'-8"
22' 22' 14'-6" 12'-5" 3' 14'-11" 66'-10" 7'-2" 44' 12'-6" 8' 2'-1" 9'-3" 22'-4" 6'-10" 19'-6" 18'-5" 5' 6' 1'-10" 12'-10" 18'-10" 10'-6" 5'-2" 8' 10' 6'-9" 11'-4" 12' 34'-3" 25' 44'
3'-10" 4' 8' 6'-9" 2' 8'-2" 9'-6" 8' 25'-10" 4' 1'-6" 6' 19'-4" 2' 6" 6" 8" 8" 16'-10" 6" 6" 6" 6" 2' 11'-6" 6" 17'-4" 8" 18' 6" 6'-6" 8" 6" 8" 12'-2" 6" 5'-6" 3' 6" 6'-6" 4'-6" 14' 6" 5'-6" 6" 8" 2' 22'-6" 6'-6" 8" 8'-9" 6'-6" 4'-5" 4' 3' 1'-8" 6" 14'-6" 6'-6"16'-2" 8" 22'-6"
4'-2" 3' 8" 8" 18' 9'-2"
10'-4" 8'-8" 26'-6"
43' 12'-2"
4'
9'-9" 46' 14'-7" 14'-3" 1' 10' 3' 22'-6"
4'-6" 5'-3"
69'-5" 2' 9' 20'-11" 50'-2" 18'-9" 23'-2" 89'-10" 9'-2" 7'-4" 6'-2"
25'-9" 1' 6"1'-6" 7'-7" 3'-6" 7'-6" 6" 3' 6" 5' 6" 4' 6" 5'-6" 4' 6" 15'-2" 4'-8" 6" 4' 6" 8" 6"4' 10'
PROPOSED
SIDE YARD SETBACK MAIN LIVING ROOM KITCHEN AND DINING AREA HALLWAY 03 BEDROOM 03 BEDROOM 02 ENTRANCE HALLWAY OPEN TO THE SKY BATHROOM 03 POWDER ROOM 02 CLOSET 03 CLOSET 02 BATHROOM 02 STORAGE ROOM 02 HALLWAY 05 STAFF ROOM STORAGE ROOM 01 FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELLOW +2'-6" +103.5' ±0'-0" +101' +3'-0" +104' FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELOW FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELOW FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE 6" 2'-2" 3'-6" 3' 6" 11' 3' 6" 6" 6" 6'-9" 8" 6" 2'8" 2' 13'-10"
10'-4" 5' 4' 20'-6" 7" 8" 6'-1"
1'-8" 3' 1'-5"
5'-4" 3' 10'-7" 7"
3'-3" 2'-6" 2' 2'-6"
12'-4" 9'-7" 8" 19'-5" 1' 8" 8" 4' 4'
10'-6" HALLWAY 04 TOILET 05 TOILET 03 TOILET 02 65 SQ. FT. 68 SQ. FT. 181 SQ. FT. 9" 588 SQ. FT. 587 SQ. FT. 159 SQ. FT. 460 SQ. FT. 40 SQ. FT. 20 SQ. FT. 2'-6" 6" 6' 6" 2'-6" 99 SQ. FT. 222 SQ. FT. 19 SQ. FT. 57 SQ. FT. 301 SQ. FT. 18 SQ. FT. 20 SQ. FT. 81 SQ. FT. 221 SQ. FT. 63 SQ. FT. -12'-0" +89' MAIN RESIDENCE - GROUND FLOOR 1' 1' FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELLOW OVERHANG 1'-2" 1'-3" ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' 58' OVERHANG ±0'-0" +101' FOOTPRINT FLOOR ABOVE OVERHANG 1'-2" 3'-8" 10'-2" 19'-8" 21' TRASH BINS WALL EL: -3'-6" (+97.5)WALL EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') FIREPLACE ENTRANCE WALKWAY (STONE PAVERS) OVERHANG 51'-4" LANDSCAPE WALL 34'-8" WATER FEATURE DEPTH NOT TO EXCEED 18" 14'-9"
5' 5'
1' 4'-5"
REQUIRED 10%
SIDE YARD SETBACK EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT
9'-10"
5' 5' HAMMERHEAD TURN-AROUND FIGURE "A" 12' -7'-0" +94' 1'-8" WALL EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') 2'-2" 18'-8" 2'-2" PA PA PA PA PA 2' 3' 26'-4" 15'-10" PA PA PAPA PA 10' +3'-0" +104'
20' 26' 10'10' 70'20'
50' 66 SQ. FT. 47'
2'-2" GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WALKWAY (STONE PAVERS) WALKWAY (STONE PAVERS) WALKWAY (STONE PAVERS) WALKWAY (STONE PAVERS) CONCRETE SERVICE PATH POOL EDGE EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') POOL EDGE EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) +2'-6" +103.5' STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) SETBACK SETBACK 76'-10" 53'-6" 74'-3" 592'
2'-6" 1'
8' 6'
6'-6" 5' GRAVEL DRIVEWAY ±0'-0" +101' OVERHANG
4'-2" 4'-6" 20' 3'-6"12'-6" 13'-6" +3'-0" +104' ±0'-0" +101' +2'-6" +103.5' PA 2'-2" PA ±0'-0" +101' N.G. 102.97' N.G. 104' N.G. 105.40' N.G. 103.62' N.G. 101.55' N.G. 105.12' N.G. 106' N.G. 105.92' N.G. 103.71' N.G. 92.53' N.G. 90.84' N.G. 89.9' N.G. 90.19' N.G. 91.77' N.G. 102.06' N.G. 103.08' N.G. 92.09' N.G. 96.56' N.G. 99.36 N.G. 98.69' N.G. 105.02' N.G. 104.81' N.G. 106.28' N.G. 104.66' N.G. 106' N.G. 104' 103.8' 103.5' 103.5' 103.3' 103.6' 103.5' 103.5' -0'-6" +100.5 -0'-6" +100.5 -0'-2" +100.8' +2'-6" +103.5' +3'-0" +104' 30' 98.5' 99.6' OUTDOOR SHOWER OPEN TO THE SKY 5' 16' 5'-6" 3' -11'-0" +90' -12'-0" +89' 5' 8" -0'-6" +100.5 7'-8" +3'-0" +104' STONE PAVERS
LOT WIDTH
98'-4" TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR (NOT TO BE ENCLOSED) 763.8 SQ FT POOL DECK (STONE PAVERS) 77 SQ. FT. 2' STAIRS E-04 A 2.2 E-01
A 2.1
E-03 A 2.1 E-02 A 2.1 E-05 A 2.2 A-A A 3.1 A-A A 3.1
D-D
A 3.2
D-D
A 3.2 B-B A 3.1 B-B A 3.1 C-C A 3.2 C-C A 3.2 W/D W/D DW WINE DISPLAY 6" 6'-6" DW REF/FRZ OVEN +1'-6" +102.5' 12' 63'-6" 6" 34' 3' 8' 2'-2"
9'-6"
13'-6" 18' HALLWAY 06 26 SQ. FT. PANTRY 16'-8" 8" REDUCED TRELLIS WALL EL: +1'-6" (+102.5') -11'-0" +90' OUTDOOR LOUNGE WITH FIRE PIT WALL EL: -0'-6" (+100.5') WALL EL: +2" (+101.2') WALL EL: +10" (+101.8') 17' 10'-10" 5'-1" 5'-1" TRELLIS PA PA -0'-6" +100.5 JACUZZI RELOCATED LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED LOWER LEVEL STAIRS RELOCATED UNDER FOOTPRINT OF GROUND FLOOR AND EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" A-1.2 N 354
82' 84'86'88' 90' 92'94' 96' 98' 100' 102' 104' 82' 84'86'88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100' 100' 102' 74' 76'
78' 92' 94' 96' 98' 90' OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE +12'-0" +113' EXTERIOR WALL BELOW EL: +14'-6" (+115.5') ROOF ABOVE E-04 A 2.2 E-01
A 2.1
E-03 A 2.1 E-02 A 2.1 E-05 A 2.2 A-A A 3.1 A-A A 3.1
D-D
A 3.2
D-D
A 3.2 B-B A 3.1 B-B A 3.1 C-C A 3.2 C-C A 3.2 +12'-0" +113' OUTDOOR SHOWER OPEN TO THE SKY OUTDOOR GARDEN OPEN TO THE SKY OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE FLAT ROOF OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELOW LOT LENGTH REQUIRED 15%
SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIRED 10%
SIDE YARD SETBACK EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT EDISON EASEMENT 592' 14'-9"
9'-10"
10'
5' 5'
5' 5'
22' 18' 48'-7" 19' 73'-9" 9'-3" 22'-4" 6'-10" 19'-6" 18'-5" 12'-10" 8' 10' 8" 4'-6" 4'-2"
17'-7" 18'
10'-4" 8'-8"
32'-2" 7'-4"
6'-2"
2'
PROPOSED
SIDE YARD SETBACK 13'-10"
2'
10'-4" 5' 17'-4" 8'-4" 14'-2"
3'-3" 3'-3" 1'-6" 3' 1'-6" 3' 1'-6" 34'-10" 4'-6" 8"8" 20'-8" 8" 5'-5" 9'-9" 2'-3" 5' 10" 22'-8" 32'-8" 21'-4" 8"
17'-3" 17'-4" 8" 19'-1"
21'-10"
23'-9" 9'-10"
8'-3" 6'-7" 10'-11"
18'-2"
8'-6"
12'-6" 6" 6" 4' 2' 23' 6" 4'-4" 2' 13' 25'-4" 12' 8" 10'-8" 9'-4" 8" 5' 6" 4' 6" 27' 8" 3'-2" 3'-6" 6' 6'-8" 4' 8' 12' 13' 5' 3' 1'-10"
3'-6" 6' 10" 6" 2' 12'-8" 8" 4'-6" 3' 6'-2"
3'-2"
6'-9" 2' 5' 1' 4'-8" 4'-10" 8" 5'-4" 1'-6" 3'-7" 11'-2" 5'-10" 8" 23'-6" 8" 4' 8" 8'-6" 2' 8" 15' 6" 2'-6" 10' 8" 2' 3'-6" 6" 15' 6"3'-6" 2' 8" 4'-10" 8" 11' 3'-6" 3'-6" 6" 6" 3'-6" 3' 7'-8" 2' 8"6" 2'-8" 11' 2' HALLWAY 07 UPPER LEVEL STAIRS MASTER BEDROOM MASTER CLOSET MASTER BATHROOM MASTER TOILET DEN ROOM DEN BATHROOM OPEN TO THE SKY 58 SQ. FT. 236 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.336 SQ. FT. 410 SQ. FT. 58 SQ. FT. 55 SQ. FT. 190 SQ. FT. 4' 6" 4' 2'-6" 4' 11' 6" 3' 6" 4' 8" 5'-2" 8" 6" 8" MAIN RESIDENCE - UPPER FLOOR ROOF ABOVE +12'-0" +113' 1'-2" 1'-2" 10'-4" 53'-2" 10' 12'-4" FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELOW FOOTPRINT FLOOR BELOW FLAT ROOF HANDRAIL EL: +15'-6" (+116.5') PARAPET WALL EL: +13'-6" (+114.5') +12'-0" +113' EXTERIOR WALL BELOW EL: +14'-6" (+115.5') FIREPLACE FIREPLACE ROOF DECK FLAT ROOF FLAT ROOF LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +11'-0" (+112') WATER FEATURE BELOW WATER FEATURE BELOW POOL BELOW BBQ AREA BELOW SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT LANDSCAPE WALL EL: +8'-6" (+109'-6") WATER FEATURE BELOW 2' STUCCO RETAINING WALL BELOW (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) -2'-6" +98.5' STUCCO RETAINING WALL BELOW (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) SETBACK SETBACK +3'-0" +104' +1'-6" +102.5' ±0'-0" +101' ENTRANCE WALKWAY BELOW ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' ±0'-0" +101' 2' OUTDOOR LOUNGE WITH FIREPIT BELOW WALKWAY BELOW WALKWAY BELOW +3'-0" +104' DRIVEWAY BELOW 10'-3" T.O.F.S. (LP) EL: +13'-10" (+114.8') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +14'-2" (+115.2') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +14'-2" (+115.2') T.O.F.S. (LP) EL: +11'-10" (+112.8') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +12'-2" (+113.2')T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +12'-2" (+113.2') T.O.F.S. (LP) EL: +13'-10" (+114.8') T.O.F.S. (LP) EL: +11'-10" (+112.8') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +14'-2" (+115.2') T.O.F.S. (LP) EL: +13'-10" (+114.8') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +14'-2" (+115.2') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +14'-2" (+115.2') T.O.F.S. (HP) EL: +12'-2" (+113.2') 3'-10" ACCESS GATE 2' A.F.F. 12'-5" 5' ±0'-0" +101' +3'-0" +104' +12'-0" +113' +12'-0" +113' +12'-0" +113' ±0'-0" +101' +2'-6" +103.5' -0'-6" +100.5 -0'-2" +100.8' -0'-6" +100.5
LOT WIDTH
98'-4" HVAC / MECH. TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR EL: +10'-6" (+101.5') TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR (NOT TO BE ENCLOSED) 102.38 sq ft 4'-6" 22'-9" N.G. 105.40' N.G. 103.62' N.G. 101.55' N.G. 105.12' N.G. 102.06' N.G. 103.08' N.G. 105.02' N.G. 104.81' N.G. 102.97' N.G. 104' N.G. 102' N.G. 101.88' N.G. 100.56' N.G. 101.64' N.G. 104.12' HANDRAIL EL: +15'-6" (+116.5') PARAPET WALL EL: +13'-6" (+114.5') -11'-0" +90' JACUZZI BELOW JACUZZI RELOCATED EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" A-1.3 N 355
+14'-6" (+115.5') +3'-0" (+104') +17'-0" (+118') +3'-0" (+104') +11'-0" (+112') +23'-6" (+124.5') NATURAL GRADE +23'-6" (+124.5') NATURAL GRADE WATER FEATURE ENTRANCE DOOR 6'-6" 14'
8' 6' 10'-6" METAL GATE WALKWAY GARAGE STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) ±0'-0" +101' +12'-0" +113' UPPER FLOOR GROUND FLOOR 12'
21'
9' 14' WALKWAY 9' PLASTER LANDSCAPE WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) 6' 9'-7" GROUND FLOOR
11'-6"
20'-6" +3'-0" (+104')WALKWAY +13'-6" (+114.5') ±0'-0" (+101') +23'-6" (+124.5') +13'-6" (+114.5') +1'-6" (+102.5') +17'-0" (+118') +11'-0" (+112') PLASTER LANDSCAPE WALL -3'-6" (+97.5') +1'-6" (+102.5') -11'-0" (+90') +3'-0" (+104') FINISH GRADE WALKWAY FINISH GRADE NATURAL GRADE POOL EDGE -7'-0" (+94') 3'-6"
13'-6"
13'-6"
10'
23'-6"
14' 6'-6"
14'
8'
8'-6"
1'-6"
2' +15'-6" (+116.5') HANDRAIL ±0'-0" +101' +12'-0" +113' UPPER FLOOR GROUND FLOOR -12'-0" +89' LOWER FLOOR PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER STAIR WALL WALKWAY FINISH GRADE NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE LANDSCAPE +10'-6" (+101.5') TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR +21'-6" (+122.5') JACUZZI EDGE EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED JACUZZI RELOCATED LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED ±0'-0" +101' +12'-0" +113' UPPER FLOOR GROUND FLOOR -12'-0" +89' LOWER FLOOR +13'-6" (+114.5') +23'-6" (+124.5') +15'-6" (+116.5') +1'-6" (+102.5') -12'-0" (+89') ±0'-0" (+101') +23'-5" (+124.5') -7'-0" (+94') HANDRAIL POOL EDGE 13'-6"
3'-6"
8'-6"
1'-6"
10' STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL +17'-0" (+118') PLASTER WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL FINISH GRADE NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE -3'-6" (+97.5') 2' PLASTER STAIR WALL
12'-6" FINISH GRADE +1'-6" (+102.5') 7'-8"
12' +10'-6" (+101.5') TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR +21'-6" (+122.5') TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR -11'-0" (+90') -0'-6" (+100.5') 10'-6" PLASTER STAIR WALL JACUZZI EDGE LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED JACUZZI RELOCATED THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1‚ 2 & 3 PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" A-2.1 MAIN HOUSE - ELEVATION 1 - WEST ELEVATION MAIN HOUSE - ELEVATION 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION MAIN HOUSE - ELEVATION 3 - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 356
±0'-0" +101' +12'-0" +113' ±0'-0" (+101') +23'-6" (+124.5') +15'-6" (+116.5') +14'-6" (+115.5') +2'-6" (+103.5') +17'-0" (+118') +11'-0" (+112') PLASTER LANDSCAPE WALL +13'-6" (+114.5') +1'-6" (+102.5') +2'-6" (+103.5') +1'-6" (+102.5') FINISH GRADE NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE POOL EDGE WALKWAY FINISH GRADE PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL -12'-0" +89' BASEMENT 12'
14'
8'
21'
9'
13'-6" PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL
4' OVERHANG / BAR PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL HANDRAIL
2'
10' +23'-6" (+124.5') -2'-6" (+98.5') BBQ AREA
4'-6" FINISH GRADE
21' +2'-6" (+103.5') WALKWAY TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR +10'-6" (+101.5') UPPER FLOOR GROUND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR -14'-7" +86.4' BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR -0'-6" (+100.5') PLASTER STAIR WALL PLANTER EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED LANDSCAPE NATURAL GRADE +1'-6" (+102.5') 10'
9' +15'-6" (+116.5') +13'-6" (+114.5') HANDRAIL
2' +1'-6" (+102.5') +23'-6" (+124.5') +14'-6" (+115.5') PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL PLASTER EXTERIOR WALL STUCCO RETAINING WALL (6 FEET HIGH ABOVE NATURAL GRADE) +2'-6" (+103.5') 5' -11'-0" (+90') -7'-0" (+94') -3'-6" (+97.5') LANDSCAPE +1'-6" (+102.5') FINISH GRADE NATURAL GRADE ±0'-0" +101' +12'-0" +113' -12'-0" +89' PLASTER WALL PLASTER STAIR WALL FINISH GRADE POOL EDGE +10'-6" (+101.5') TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR TRELLIS +21'-6" (+102.5') 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR UPPER FLOOR GROUND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR PLASTER STAIR WALL 10'-6" -0'-6" (+100.5') PLANTER EXTERIOR GROUND LEVEL STAIRS REMOVED LOWER FLOOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN FOOTPRINT - BEDROOM 01, GROUND FLOOR LOUNGE AND JACUZZI REMOVED FINISH GRADE PLANTER THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE MAIN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 4 & 5 PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/28 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2021/08/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 3 2022/05/26 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 4 2022/06/20 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 5 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" A-2.2 MAIN HOUSE - ELEVATION 4 - NORTH ELEVATION MAIN HOUSE - ELEVATION 5 - NORTHEAST ELEVATION 357
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Jason Ernst
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:59:45 PM
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:52 AM
To: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Good Morning Doug,
Hope you had a great weekend. I placed my answers below your questions in red. Hope it helps you, please let me know if I can clarify further.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Richard,
This issue of a view corridor and your answers are somewhat on target to my questions and those of the neighbors I have spoken with.
My issues stem from three questions. They are:
1. Where does a view corridor have to be placed on the property? It was my understanding that any such corridor must be along the lot line. In this case, the north lot boundary and the south boundary of the lot. This is somewhat addressed on page 258 of the report. However, it is not clear that there is any requirement or basis for the option of a diagonal view corridor as mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting.
Based on the LIP requirements below, the City has traditionally required view corridors along the 358
side yard property line. As you can see with irregularly shaped lots, the code identifies side yard. The LIP does not identify a diagonal view corridor as an option. With respect to ocean view, the applicant has two alternatives. One option is to build below road grade when feasible. Option 2 is to provide a view corridor where not feasible to build below road grade. The view corridor in the side yard is a means to allow for the lot to still be buildable while still providing a public ocean view.
A view corridor through the middle of the lot could be seen as rendering the lot unbuildable.
LIP Criteria:Where the topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site by incorporating the following measures. a. Buildings shall not occupy more than 80 percent maximum of the lineal frontage of the site.
b. The remaining 20 percent of lineal frontage shall be maintained as one contiguous view corridor, except on lots with a width of 50 feet or less. Lots with a lineal frontage of 50 feet or less shall provide 20% of the lot width as view corridor; however, the view corridor may be split to provide a contiguous view corridor of not less than 10% of the lot width on each side.
For lots greater than 50 feet in width, the view corridor may be split to provide a contiguous view corridor of not less than 10 percent of the lot width on each side, provided that each foot of lot width greater than 50 feet is added to the view corridor. On irregularly shaped lots, the Planning Manager shall determine which side yards shall constitute the view corridor in order to maximize public views. Sites shall not be designed so as to provide for parking within these designated view corridors.
2. When I walked the property, the only view along the possible lot line view corridors was the mobile home park. The house is sited at an angle to address the ocean view being “to the right” and not directly “in front”.
Is there supporting language to support that if there is not an ocean view, then no corridor?
Public view preservation is found in LIP Chapter 6, for all CDP application staff evaluates the project’s potential for an impact to a scenic view per LIP 6.3 below. If the project can demonstrate that it will not have an impact on scenic area than the requirements of a view corridor are not applied.
6.3. STANDARDS FOR
DETERMINATION
All applications for a Coastal Development Permit shall be subject to an onsite investigation in order to determine whether the proposed project has the potential to cause adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas from or along Scenic Roads or Public Viewing Areas. Where applicable, proposed structures shall be accurately indicated 359
as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags. All proposed grading and the proposed location of access roads or driveways, including the centerline top of cut and toe of fill, shall be accurately indicated by stakes. Both poles and stakes shall remain in place for the duration of the approval process. The applicant may also be required to provide other visual aides such as photographs with superimposed structures. These requirements may be waived by the Planning Manager where it is determined through onsite investigation, evaluation of topographic maps or photographic evidence, or by other means that there is no possibility that the proposed development will create or contribute to adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007)
3. Also what is this mention of an “off-site” view corridor? Is there a basis to require the applicant to have to acquire a view corridor somewhere else? This is one that I am well versed in since I was the Planner that processed that amendment to our LCP. The offisite view corridor was a way to allow someone to block a required view corridor on their property and place that view corridor somewhere else in the City. Peter Morton was the one who processed that LCPA through the City and then the CCC to address his code violation for blocking his required view corridor. This was based on past action by the CCC and it is how one of the two lots along Carbon Beach where MRCA took down the fence came about. In order to utilize an offsite view corridor it first needs to be established that a view corridor is required.
Thanks
Doug
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Subject: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ALL
Good Evening Mayor and Council,
Staff received the following questions about item 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive and I would like to share the answers to those questions with the Council. The answer to each question is in red below.
1. If a property on which there is to be new development is required to have a 20% view corridor, is the owner / developer required to remove existing vegetation that is in that view corridor?
Correct, no vegetation and no portion of the structure above road grade would be allowed in a view corridor other than visually permeable fencing or low-growing vegetation.
2. When ascertaining whether there are ocean views from the public road in front of property on which there is to be new development, must the ocean be capable of being 360
seen pre-development, or is the question whether the ocean would be seen if the 20 percent view corridor existed and was vegetation-free?
The question is whether a public ocean view exists and vegetation is not considered in that analysis.
3. Does the L.I.P. require that the public must be able to see the ocean while standing in the corridor and/or that the public must be standing in the view corridor for the ocean view from the street to be entitled to preservation? If the answer is yes, what language of the L.I.P. establishes such a requirement?
The LCP’s LUP language discuss preservation of views from public areas, which would include the public right of way.
4. Does the L.I.P. require that an ocean must be within the view corridor (as opposed being able to be seen diagonally across the view corridor) to be entitled to preservation? If the answer is yes, what language of the L.I.P. establishes such a requirement? This question seems to be asking about a situation where there is an ocean view over the property but the view corridors themselves don’t provide an ocean view. The code defines the view corridor as an ocean view corridor. In such a situation, the question would become whether the view corridor should be provided onsite or whether an offsite view corridor should be required.
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
361
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Jason Ernst
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:05:33 PM
Attachments: PVD 23-004.pdf
image002.png
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Answers in red below. There was a lot so I was brief but it answers all the questions except 16 which is a CA question.
From: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Steve, Richard & Trevor:
I have some questions I require answered in advance of the hearing on Item 4.A next week. I can speak with one or more of you directly, or you can provide the answers in writing -- whichever is more convenient to you.
My questions are as follows:
1. I had thought that Frank Angel submitted a letter following the Planning Commission meeting objecting to the City Council hearing this matter in the first instance. If so, I do not see that letter in the Council Agenda Report for Item 4.A.
Nor does there appear to be any other correspondence that post-dates the Planning Commission meeting. Is there any such correspondence (including from Frank Angel)? This was addressed with the supplemental report published last week.
2. Does the property at 6725 have a PVD? If so, does it include any blue water that will be obstructed by any part of the proposed development that is more than 18 feet in height? If not, and if the property owner should apply for a PVD prior to any approval of the proposed project, and if the PVD were to include blue water, would that be enforceable with respect to the proposed project? No current PVD on file but if they wanted to get one as a result of this project they could and it would be enforceable. We do this many times on various projects throughout the City, as you will see in the answer to the next question.
3. Does Janet Friesen have a PVD? If so, does it include any blue water or mountain view that will be obstructed by any part of the proposed development that is more than 18 feet in height? If not, and if Ms. Friesen should apply for a PVD prior to any approval of the proposed project, and if the PVD were to include blue water, would that be enforceable with respect to the proposed project? Yes, we documented one at 6744 Zumirez as a result of this project. Attached for your reference. Their particular view was not impacted by the development.
4. Is any part of blue water within the PVD for 6716 Zumirez Drive (including any view currently obscured by foilage on any property) reduced by any part of the proposed development that exceeds 18 feet? Not by development that exceeds 18 feet. A portion of the proposed pool deck could be within the view, but that development is proposed below 18 feet. This is covered in more detail in the original Planning Commission staff report, which is provided within the agenda report. 362
The applicant has also elected to remove that portion of the deck so that no portion of the view is impacted. However, staff has not been to the Zicklin’s home to verify.
5.Is any part of blue water within the PVD for Zumirez Drive (including any view currently obscured by foilage on any property) reduced by any part of the proposed development that exceeds 18 feet? We may be missing an address here but staff looked for PVDs that could be impacted and none were found to have a significant impact. The neighbor’s that reached out about their particular views being impacted were addressed in the staff report.
6.Is being sited on slopes flatter than 4 to 1 the sole requirement for projects located in or adjacent to a stream the sole requirement of Chapter 4 of the LIP for Point Dume?When, if ever, has the City Council determined that the second paragraph of L.I.P. Section 4.6.1(A) is in lieu of the buffer required by the first paragraph as opposed to being in addition thereto?
Is there legislative history that explains the purpose of the second paragraph of 4.6.1(A)? The reason I ask is illustrated by the following two examples:
New Development proposed on flat ground 10 feet from a stream. Not permitted if second paragraph is an additional restriction, because it is within 100 feet of the stream (without regard to degree of slope). Permitted if the only restriction is for development that encroaches on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper. Indeed, if the second paragraph is the only restriction in Point Dume, the development could go right to the edge of the stream and maybe even cross the stream.
New Development proposed on slope of 25 percent or steeper on property that is more than 250 feet from any stream (including any riparian vegetation). Not permitted if second paragraph is a restriction that applies in Point Dume (without regard to the first paragraph). Permitted if second paragraph is an additional restriction, because it is not within 100 feet of the stream (including any riparian vegetation).
When approving the City’s LCP ESHA criteria for the Point Dume area, the California Coastal Commission required that development shall avoid 25% slopes because the geography of the area is such that avoiding the slopes would essentially prevent impacts to the nearby streams. Although, I am not aware of a Council decision to also not include a the first part of 4.6.1(A). The way its worded is that “New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream. However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.” The City has applied the no development on slopes of 25 percent or more criteria and not the 100 foot ESHA setback.
7.Has there been a formal determination that the proposed project is not located adjacent to wetlands? No, one was not completed because in the Point Dume area, the City’s practice has been to require that applicants avoid 4:1 slopes to comply with LIP Chapter 4. However, CDPWF No. 21-005 at 6642 Zumirez Drive was also reviewed for the same watercourse and its staff understanding that the criteria used by the California Coastal Commission was whether or not the development was to take place on 4 to 1 slopes.
8.Is Dave Crawford still the City Biologist? Is he a full-time employee? Does he also work for anyone else? Does he work for any developers or work for anyone who works for developers? Dave was the City’s biologist at the time this project was submitted but currently the City has a different contract biologist. As I mentioned in my previous email he did work on projects outside the City.
9.Is any part of the proposed project sited on a slope of more than 4 to 1? Staff is currently reviewing the slope analysis again, but the submitted analysis demonstrates that no development is located on a 4 to 1 slope.
10. L.I.P. Section 6.2 states that "The hillside development standards of this chapter shall apply to properties where the project site includes any area of slope over 20 percent."Does the record reflect whether any part of the project site includes any area of slope over 20 percent? [It seems to me that there is no analysis of this issue. Moreover, the surveyor diagram on page 244 of the Council Agenda Report that shows no slopes steeper than 25% reflects that the 25% slopes come right up to the border of the proposed project – which suggests that the slopes immediately landward of the 25% slopes are greater than 20%]. If the record does not provide a reliable basis for making an informed decision that no part of the project site includes any area of slope over 20%, how it the City Council able to make a finding of satisfaction with L.I.P. Section 6.2
Chapter 6 applied to this project and the findings were made pursuant to LIP Section 6.4. The project was also reviewed to conform to the hillside standards of LIP Section 6.5(C) in that no development is on a ridgeline, and development is limited to the flat portions of the building pad.
363
11. How old can a slope study be before it is stale for purposes of evaluating a proposed project? The LIP does not have an expiration for survey. But as a policy the City has required that survey documentation is no more than 2 years old but its project specific.
12. Has a geologist formally determined that the proposed project is not situated within 50 feet of a "bluff edge" (as that term is defined in the LIP)? The geology reports do not indicate the slope as a bluff and our geotechnical consultants did not indicate the slope as a bluff. Since it was not determined to be a bluff, the bluff setback and standards were not applied to the project.
13.Where in the L.I.P. does it say that the view corridor of the property on which the proposed project is sited controls the determination of the public ocean views for purposes of LIP Section 6.5(E)? What if the proposal were to move the house as far as permissible to the north on the property? Also, the residence, itself, when constructed will have a 180 degree view corridor. Why is the public view limited to looking straight ahead, and not 180 degrees? Aside from the language of L.I.P. Section 6.5(E), what should the City Council look at to determine the proper application of the LIP in this situation?
All views of scenic resources are protected, the way the LCP protects ocean views is by requiring development to be below road grade if feasible or through view corridors. View corridors are meant to provide views where development obstructs the view from the public area as a result it becomes a single view (unless the lot is less than 50 feet wide) perpendicular from the road.
In making a decision, LIP 6.3 provides guidance in making a decision.
LIP 6.3. STANDARDS FOR DETERMINATION
All applications for a Coastal Development Permit shall be subject to an onsite investigation in order to determine whether the proposed project has the potential to cause adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas from or along Scenic Roads or Public Viewing Areas. Where applicable, proposed structures shall be accurately indicated as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags. All proposed grading and the proposed location of access roads or driveways, including the centerline top of cut and toe of fill, shall be accurately indicated by stakes. Both poles and stakes shall remain in place for the duration of the approval process. The applicant may also be required to provide other visual aides such as photographs with superimposed structures.
These requirements may be waived by the Planning Manager where it is determined through onsite investigation, evaluation of topographic maps or photographic evidence, or by other means that there is no possibility that the proposed development will create or contribute to adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007)
14.L.I.P. Section 13.27.5, which is titled “Findings,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(A) The Planning Director may approve or conditionally approve a site plan review application only if the Planning Director affirmatively finds that the proposal meets all of the following: . . . . 3. That the project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP."L.I.P. Section 6.2, titled “Applicability,” provides, in pertinent part, that "All 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 shall be governed by the policies, standards and provisions of this chapter in addition to any other policies or standards contained elsewhere in the certified LCP which may apply." (Emphasis added).MMC Section 6.5.(A) similarly provides, in pertinent part, that "New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent." Finally, the L.I.P. defines “Public Viewing Area” as "a location along existing scenic public roads and trails or within public parklands or beaches where there are scenic views of the beach and ocean, coastline, mountains, ridgelines, canyons and other unique natural features or areas." The Planning Department concluded that the proposed project is visible from the beach below Paradise Cove, but further concluded that the project will not impact the public view of scenic areas from that beach. The Planning Department did not say anything about the term “public viewing area.” This raises four questions – namely (i) Does L.I.P. Section 13.27.5 protect any public views from a beach that is not a "public viewing area" within the statutory definition of that term? Typically, its views of the ocean but it could also be impressive scenes of the Santa Monica Mountains and other natural geographic landscapes. The views from the beach did not appear to impact any public views of scenic resources. ; (ii) If L.I.P. Section 13.27.5 does not protect any public views from a beach that is not a "public viewing area", does the word “public” qualify “parklands or beaches” or only “parklands” in the definition of "public viewing area"?; Public viewing areas would include the beaches, parks, public roads, and trails (iii) If a beach must be "public" for views from that beach to be protected by L.I.P. Section 13.27.5, are all beaches that are not formally designated a "public beaches" excluded from the protection of L.I.P. Section 13.27.5, or is the concept of a beach that is "public" for purposes of L.I.P. Section
13.27.5 less formal than that?; All beaches within Malibu, specifically where the State or County have jurisdiction are public beaches and are public viewing areas. Paradise Cove Beach was analyzed as a pubic beach for this project and the 364
findings of LIP Chapter 6 were made,. (iv) Without regard to whether the beach below Paradise Cove is or is not a "public viewing area," is there any impact (as opposed to impact that is minimal and/or not expected to be significant) upon any scenic view (e.g., "mountains, ridgelines, canyons and other unique natural features or areas") from that beach? No impacts were found.
15. Are there any photos of the story poles from the beach below Paradise Cove? We do have photos from a neighbor taken from the beach here it is below.
16. Frank Angel argues that this project does not qualify for a CEQA categorical exemption.The project applicant’s lawyer argues that it does qualify.Is this a legal issue or an issue of fact?If it is a legal issue, what is the answer? If it is a factual issue, what factors does the City Council consider? This is something Trevor should answer.
17. Page 287 of the Council Agenda Report reflects a rendering of the proposed main residence that includes a daylighted basement. Does this make the residence 3 stories or otherwise require a variance? That portion of the areas that sits under the pool is not considered a basement and was counted towards the TDSF. There was some portions of that area that do become basement as you move further westward. At no point does the structure exceed three stories. The portions of that area that are under the first two stories is considered basement. See section below.
18. There is reference to a revision of the proposed project that was not reviewed by the Planning Department. Does any part of the analysis presented to the staff's analysis of the proposed project include any part of the revision? What about Don Schmitz's presentation?
Staff’s presentation is the original project. The day of the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant decided to remove a portion of the pool deck area 365
that was in the Zicklin’s view. Don plans to bring that project forward in his presentation. Staff has not done a full analysis on the removed area but it appears to get rid of the portion within the Zicklin’s view. It should also reduce the square footage by a bit unless some was added elsewhere.
Thanks in advance for your responses to my inquiries.
Stay Well,
Bruce
366
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. ∙ Malibu, California ∙ 90265-4816 Phone (310) 456-2489 ∙ Fax (310) 456-7650 ∙ www.malibucity.org
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination No 23-004
6744 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265
On February 16, 2023, staff conducted a primary view determination at 6744 Zumirez Drive. Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.45.050, staff captured the primary view from the patio abutting the living room of a single-family residence, a location chosen by the property owner, Janet Friesen. The property and recorded view is denoted in the neighborhood map Exhibit 1 below.
Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 6744 Zumirez Drive. (City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
367
2 A total of five photographs were captured in sequence from South to North. The nature of the view determination consists of the Pacific Ocean, Queen’s Necklace, Palos Verdes, South Bay Curve, and Santa Monica Mountains. The specific location of the view determination was on the outdoor patio abutting the living room, a primary living area. The photos were taken eight feet in front of the living room wall at an elevation of five feet. A detailed key map showing the specific location where the view was observed, the 180-degree view axis, and corresponding views are denoted in Exhibit 2 below.
Exhibit 2: Detailed Key Map of the Primary View Determination: 6674 Zumirez Drive. (Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
1 3
5 2
4 368
3 The five photos that combine to reflect the property’s primary view are provided below.
View 1 Looking South.
View 2 Looking Southeast.
369
4 View 3 Looking East.
View 4 Looking Northeast.
370
5 View 5 Looking North.
371
6 Photo taken eight feet from exterior wall of living room.
Photo taken at an elevation of 5 feet.
372
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Jason Ernst
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: Council Item 4A
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:17:13 PM
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Council Item 4A
Hi Steve,
Nice speaking with you today. As discussed, below is the definition of a coastal bluff in LIP Chapter 2.
COASTAL BLUFF - a high bank or bold headland, ten feet (10′) or more in vertical extent, with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a body of water.
I am not aware off the top of my head if the argument has been used before, but we also took into account that the home at 6716 Zumirez, CDP 05-098, did not have to apply bluff setback standards.
Not to say that was right or wrong, but precedent had shown that the same hillside had not previously been considered a bluff.
The other questions seem better for our City Attorney to weigh in so I will forward to them to get an answer.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 5:35 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Item 4A
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links,reply or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tyler,
A couple of questions on 4A to get us started.
373
1) In the staff report you state that appealing a tie planning commission vote to the City Council is "consistent with past city practice".
Please identify the past dates and planning commission decisions that were handled in a similar manner.
Please also identify any tie planning commission votes that were not appealed to the city council. 2) Please identify where I find the written city rules that define when we follow Roberts rules of order for parliamentary procedure and when we ignore these rules and follow another set of rules.
Please also direct me to the document where I can find these alternative rules defined. 3) At approximately the 2.29 .30 mark of the March 6th Planning Commission meeting Lauren Doyle made the following statement in response to a question from Jeff Jennings as to why Lauren was not calling the bluff on Zumeriz a bluff:
Lauren stated "Under the definition of Coastal Bluff ( in the LIP) a high bank or bold headland 10 feet or more in vertical extent with a broad precipitous sometimes rounded cliff face.' Would you direct me to the section of the LIP where this definition ( including the word Precipitous) is found?
Can you direct me to any prior discussion of coastal bluffs where the word precipitous was used to define the coastal bluff?
I will get you more questions after more review.
steveU
374
From: Benjamin Suber
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Chris Deleau
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Dr. CDP (Item 4.b. last night) - Revised Plan Submittal Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:01:31 AM
Attachments: 201120_IBN_ZMRZ_CDP_STORY POLE PLANS_UPDATE 20230303-STORY POLE PLAN - MAIN RESIDENCE.pdf Good morning Tyler,
I hope you’ve had a great week so far! Based on the revised plans that were submitted in March, we have also revised our story pole plans and the plans are attached. Is there anything else you need for a stamp of these plans?
Thank you in advance and I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Cindy Martin <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]> Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr. CDP (Item 4.b. last night) - Revised Plan Submittal Dear Chair Smith and Honorable Commissioners,
We discovered today that the Planning Department has been having trouble with its computer/email servers and that this was the reason that our revised plan submittal was missed last Friday. Planning has confirmed the timely receipt of the email/transmittal of our plans.
These plan revisions were undertaken as quickly as possible to address comments received from the applicant's neighbors during the prior 2 weeks. We pushed our architect to work late hours to update the project plans for submittal last week (in response to very recent neighbor feedback).
Additionally, we want to go on record advising you that these plan changes were discussed 375
with the Zicklins over the weekend prior to Monday night's hearing and they were made aware of the revisions we were proposing. We contacted Angel Law requesting a meeting to discuss the plan revisions last Friday and we received no callback from Ms. Friesen's legal counsel. Notwithstanding the fact that the project story poles have been in place for the better part of a year now ("Malibu Perennial Daiseys" as they are commonly referred to), most of the neighbors who wrote in to object to the project, did not do so until the very day of the hearing.
Our client was not obligated to make the plan revisions they did. This was a neighborly gesture and one that was undertaken as quickly as possible considering the tardy nature of the comments received by the applicant's neighbors.
We thank you for your thorough, exacting and conscientious deliberations last night.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message. 376
82' 84'86'88' 90' 92'94' 96' 98' 100' 102'
82' 84'86'88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100' 100' 102' 78'80'
70'72'
74' 76'
78'
92' 94'
90' POOL EDGE/ FLOOR BELOW FLAT ROOF FLAT ROOF BELOW FLAT ROOF BELOW ROOF DECK BELOW ROOF DECK BELOW FLAT ROOF BELOW OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVEOPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE OPEN TO BELOW AND ABOVE JACUZZI BELOW #2T.R.=124.5' N.G.=102.97' H=21.53' #18 T.R.=115.5' N.G.=105.12' H=10.38' TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR #3T.R.=124.5' N.G.=102.97' H=21.53' #1T.R.=124.5' N.G.=103.18' H=21.32' #11 T.R.=124.5' N.G.=104.81' H=19.69' #9T.R.=124.5' N.G.=104.12' H=20.38' #7T.R.=124.5' N.G.=100.56' H=23.94' #23 T.R.=102.5' N.G.=92.53' H=9.97' #22 T.R.=102.5' N.G.=98.69' H=3.81' TRELLIS 90% OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN GARRETT. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. DRAWING NO. PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN BY Zumirez MP, MS DRAWING DESCRIPTION 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 PROJECT ADDRESS Zumirez PROJECT NOTES PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DATE ISSUE STORY POLE PLAN - MAIN RESIDENCE PROJECT OWNER IBN Properties LLC 5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite F Calabasas CA 91302 US MARCH 03, 2023 2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL 1 2021/05/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 2 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT 1/8" = 1'-0" SP-0.1 LEGEND # = POLE NUMBER T.R. = TOP ROOF/DECK ELEVATION AT PARAPET OR HIGHEST POINT N.G. = NATURAL GRADE ELEVATION F.G. = FINISH GRADE ELEVATION H = HEIGHT OF POLE FROM NATURAL GRADE CONSTRUCTION MESH CONNECTED TO POLES - ALL MESH TO BE CONNECTED AS STRAIGHT LINE STORY POLE ELEVATION TABULATION (All numbers are in decimal feet) POLE NUMBER NATURAL GRADE FINISH GRADE 24' from column B or C whichever is lower TOP POLE ELEVATION 1234567891011121314 POLE NUMBER NATURAL GRADE FINISH GRADE 24' from column B or C whichever is lower TOP POLE ELEVATION 15161718192223242526 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 124.5 118 118 118 116.5 116.5 116.5 115.5 115.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 STORY POLE ELEVATION TABULATION (All numbers are in decimal feet) 103.18 102.97 102 101.88 102.97 101.64 100.56 101.35 104.12 104 104.81 105.4 103.62 103.08 102.06 101.55 97.07 105.12 105.02 98.69 92.53 89.9 92.48 97.17 104 104 104 104 102.5 104 101 102.5 101 101 101 101 101 101 127.18 125 125 125 125 125 124.56 125.35 128 125 126.5 128 127.62 127.08 101 125 101 125 101 121.07 104 128 104 128 101 949099.5 100.8 122.69 116.53 113.9 116.48 121.17 POLE HEIGHT 21.32 21.53 21.53 22.5 22.62 22.86 23.94 23.15 20.38 20.5 19.69 12.6 14.38 14.92 POLE HEIGHT 14.44 14.95 19.43 10.38 10.48 3.81 9.97 12.6 10.02 5.33 TOP POOL EL. 124.5 TOP POOL EL. 118 TOP POOL EL. 116.5 TOP POOL EL. 115.5 TOP POOL EL. 102.5 18' height elevations called out by the architect on Sheets HE-0.2 and HE-0.3 should be marked (Black tape) on all poles depicting 18' from grade on the second story portion of the residence (or any part of the structure over 18' in height). POLES 20 AND 21 REMOVED POLES 27 AND 28 REMOVED 377
From: Janet Friesen
To: Tyler Eaton
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:15:15 AM
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 14, 2023, at 5:32 AM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Janet,
>
> By environmental report do you mean the biological documents submitted for this project? You'll have to do a public records request here: https://malibucity.org/records >
> I would ask for any biological related documents for the said project when you submit the request. Someone from our staff will get back to you and help you access the documents. >
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet Friesen <
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:48 PM
> To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
> Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr
>
> Hi Tyler
> Can you please forward me the environmental report that was done for 6734 Zumirez Dr? > Please advise
> Thank you
> Janet
>
> Sent from my iPhone
378
From: Benjamin Suber
To: Jason Rouse; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Richard Mollica; Don Schmitz; Ken Adelberg; Scott Hoeft; Chris Deleau Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:48:48 AM
Attachments: 6734 Zumirez Certification Letter.pdf
6734 Zumirez Radius Map.pdf
6734 Zumirez Address List.xls
6734 Zumirez Certification Form.pdf
Yes, thank you Tyler. I'm going to do my part to keep it on track by submitting an updated radius map, address list and certification. The previous listing is more than 6 months old.
All deliverables are attached. Please let us know if you need anything else. Thank you again and I hope you have a great Tuesday ahead.
Benjamin Suber
GIS Manager and Planner, Schmitz and Associates
747.444.6081
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
That’s great news Tyler. Thank you so much for the quick reply. Much appreciated.
Best
Jason
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 14, 2023, at 1:32 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
It looks like we are still on track for the September 11 meeting. Sorry did not want to respond without confirming but all signs are pointing to yes. If anything changes, I will let you know.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:11 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft 379
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-7650 · www.malibucity.org
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS/OCCUPANTS LIST
PROJECT ADDRESS: ________________________________ APN: __________________ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed (including any required occupants of said properties) as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles and for a distance of 500 feet from the exterior boundaries of the property described above or 1,000 feet for properties zoned Rural Residential – 10 acre, 20 acre and 40 acre.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: _______________________ _________________________________ Signature
_________________________________
Print Name
P:\Forms\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Label Certification_130701.doc 6734 Zumirez Dr. 4466-002-001 August 15, 2023 Benjamin Suber 380
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
l, Benjamin A. Suber, hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles within the area described and for a distance of 500 feet from the exterior boundaries of the subject property at 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu, CA, 90265 (APN: 4466-002-001).
ADDRESS: 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu, CA, 90265
Benjamin A. Suber, MPP, MS 8/15/2023
Benjamin A. Suber
August 15, 2023
381
NewID APN Owner SitusAddress SitusCity SitusZIP
1 4466‐001‐0042 4466‐002‐0013 4466‐002‐0024 4466‐002‐0035 4466‐002‐0046 4466‐002‐005 7 4466‐002‐0068 4466‐002‐020
9 4466‐002‐028
10 4466‐003‐001
11 4466‐003‐002
12 4466‐003‐003
13 4466‐003‐00414 4466‐003‐005
15 4466‐003‐006
16 4466‐003‐012
17 4466‐003‐013
18 4466‐003‐014
19 4466‐003‐01520 4466‐003‐017
21 4466‐003‐018
22 4466‐004‐017
23 4466‐004‐018
24 4466‐004‐019
25 4466‐004‐020
26 4466‐004‐025
27 4466‐004‐026
28 4466‐004‐027
29 4466‐004‐028
382
30 4466‐004‐029
31 4466‐004‐030
1 4466‐001‐004 OCCUPANT 28128 PACIFIC COAST HWY MALIBU CA 90265 2 4466‐002‐001 OCCUPANT 6734 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 902653 4466‐002‐002 OCCUPANT 6728 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 902654 4466‐002‐003 OCCUPANT 6716 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 902655 4466‐002‐004 OCCUPANT 6706 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 902656 4466‐002‐005 OCCUPANT 6674 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 902657 4466‐002‐006 OCCUPANT 6672 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 8 4466‐002‐020 OCCUPANT 6546 ZUMA VIEW PL MALIBU CA 90265 9 4466‐002‐028 OCCUPANT 6656 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 10 4466‐003‐001 OCCUPANT 6747 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026511 4466‐003‐002 OCCUPANT 6749 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026512 4466‐003‐003 OCCUPANT 6763 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026513 4466‐003‐004 OCCUPANT 6805 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026514 4466‐003‐005 OCCUPANT 6811 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026515 4466‐003‐006 OCCUPANT 6825 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026516 4466‐003‐012 OCCUPANT 6804 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 17 4466‐003‐013 OCCUPANT 6754 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026518 4466‐003‐014 OCCUPANT 6744 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026519 4466‐003‐015 OCCUPANT 6831 ZUMIREZ DRIVE MALIBU CA 90265 20 4466‐003‐017 OCCUPANT 6836 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026521 4466‐003‐018 OCCUPANT 6830 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026522 4466‐004‐017 OCCUPANT 6709 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026523 4466‐004‐018 OCCUPANT 6725 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026524 4466‐004‐019 OCCUPANT 6637 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026525 4466‐004‐020 OCCUPANT 6647 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 26 4466‐004‐025 OCCUPANT 6655 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026527 4466‐004‐026 OCCUPANT 6665 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026528 4466‐004‐027 OCCUPANT 6685 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026529 4466‐004‐028 OCCUPANT 6649 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026530 4466‐004‐029 OCCUPANT 6651 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 9026531 4466‐004‐030 OCCUPANT 6653 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 383
1 8
17 6
4 19
3 5
2 11
7 9
15 10
14 12
13 18
31 23
22 16
21 20
19 25
24 30
27 28
26 29
500-Foot Radius Map
6734 Zumirez
500-Foot Buffer
Properties within 500 Feet
0 200 400 800 Feet
¯
384
<[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler
I hope you had a great weekend. I am following up to my email last week. We would love to get confirmation on our place on the schedule for the upcoming hearing on September 11 which is quickly approaching.
I would sincerely appreciate the courtesy of a response.
Thank you so much
Best
Jason Rouse
310.592.9180
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 9, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Jason Rouse <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
I hope this finds you well. I am simply following up to Chris’s email below as an owner of the project.
We are very much hoping there will be no further delays and we are on the calendar for the next hearing.
We look forward to receiving your confirmation.
All the best,
Jason Rouse
On Aug 8, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Chris Deleau <[email protected]> wrote:
Tyler, It has been a month since our application was rescheduled a second time. We are following up to make sure that our client’s item is going to go before the Council on September 11, 2023.
If you could please confirm our September hearing date, we will provide you with updated noticing materials. Since we have a 21-day SPR Noticing period, now would be the time to do this.
Thanks,
<~WRD1396.jpg>
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
<~WRD1396.jpg>
747.494.7293
<~WRD1396.jpg>
schmitzandassociates.com
<~WRD1396.jpg>
[email protected]
<~WRD1396.jpg>
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to 385
anyone or make copies thereof.
<~WRD1396.jpg>
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 4:52 PM
To: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Jason,
I understand your concern. Unfortunately, the agenda it is not up to planning staff but rather City Council priority. As of now we are doing what we can to get your item formally scheduled.
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 7:16 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
This is very disappointing to hear. This is the second time we have been bumped off the schedule.
Is there anything you can do to ensure we are confirmed for the September hearing and that we don’t get pushed again?
We have spent more than 5 years adhering to the exhausting and costly process imposed by the city of Malibu to get us to this point. While we respect the process, we would sincerely appreciate our time and money being given the same consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason Rouse
310.592.9180
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2023, at 5:48 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
386
Hi Jason, Ben and team,
There has been some re-shifting of the City Council agenda due to some high priority items taking precedence. As of now the item is tentatively scheduled for September 11. You can hold off on the mailing data until we can confirm for sure.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good afternoon Tyler,
Also while I check in, please let us know if we need to update the mailing list and radius maps for CDP 20-058. If so, we’ll get them updated for you asap.
Thank you in advance and I hope you all have a great rest of your day. <~WRD2267.jpg> Benjamin Suber
GIS Manager and Planner, Schmitz and Associates
<~WRD2267.jpg>
747.444.6081
<~WRD2267.jpg>
schmitzandassociates.com
<~WRD2267.jpg>
[email protected]
<~WRD2267.jpg>
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
<~WRD2267.jpg>
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg
387
<[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber
<[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler,
I hope this finds you well. I know Don’s very capable team has been in touch regarding this, but as the owner i wanted to reach out directly about the city council hearing for 6734 Zumirez. We were told it would be on the calendar for August 14, but have not yet received official confirmation. It’s been almost 6 months since our last hearing and we are understandably anxious to see some progress. Can you please confirm?
We look forward to hearing from you.
All the best,
Jason Rouse
On Jan 23, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Everything is on schedule for the Feb 21 Meeting. I can’t release the PVD until the applicant submits the required paperwork. I will follow up again with them today.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:54 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
I hope you had a great weekend. Again, Im sure you are very busy but we would sincerely appreciate a response to our emails below regarding the neighbor issue. Also, February is quickly approaching and we would like to confirm that we are on the schedule for Feb 21 hearing so that we may plan
accordingly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Jason Rouse
388
On Jan 19, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Don Schmitz
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Tyler;
We are sensitive to the fact that you wish to
make a thorough analysis of the neighbor’s
assertion of a primary view. However, this
doesn’t provide them a blank check to delay us
interminably, especially in light of the fact that
we as applicants have provided in a timely and
proactive fashion comprehensive analysis of this
and all other issues. This is exacerbated by the
reality that we were already scheduled for
hearing months ago and had that hearing pulled
just weeks prior.
It is important that the city staff do a thorough
job, and you do. It is important that the
neighbor’s concerns be thoroughly vetted under
the code, and they have been. It is also important
that the property owners receive timely
processing of their application in a reasonable
manner and time frame consistent with the
planning industry standards like everywhere else
in the state. The planning director, city manager,
and the city council have all affirmed repeatedly
over the last two months that this is a priority
reform for Malibu.
As this application has drug on for years, it is a
good example of a system that is not functioning.
I know you and Richard are doing the best you
can with inadequate resources for the workload,
but enough is enough. Please tell our neighbors
that you are moving this project to hearing, and
that if they intend to submit anything further to
your offices the time is now.
Thank you Tyler, and if you could please let us
know by the end of this week our tentative
hearing date, I would be grateful.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617-0773 | Office: (818) 338-3636
<image001.png>
[email protected]|www.schmitzandassociates.com|www.facebook.com 389
From: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>; Ken
Adelberg <[email protected]>; Don
Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott
Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler
Any news on this? Have you received the
paperwork yet?
Please advise and thank you.
Jason Rouse
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2023, at 3:22 PM, Tyler
Eaton <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Jason,
I will be sure to send it once I
receive the paperwork.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023
12:37 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz
<[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez project and
PVD status
Hi Tyler
390
Hope you had a great weekend. Just
wanted to send a reminder to
please send us the PVD when you
can. Please keep us posted.
Thx
Jason
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2023, at 3:26
PM, Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Chris and team,
I have the PVD ready
but we are waiting on
some documents from
the applicant/owner.
Once we have those I
can release the PVD.
I will send as soon as
its finalized.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday,
January 4, 2023 6:42
PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz
<[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Importance: High
Tyler, It's been a
couple weeks since
391
you undertook the
PVD on the
neighbor's lots. Have
you been able to
draw it up and
finalize the PVD? We
would greatly
appreciate an update
here. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates,
Inc.
Christopher M.
Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects
Manager
The content of this email
is strictly confidential and
only intended for the
specified recipient. It is
forbidden to share the
email or its contents with
any third party without
the sender’s written
consent. If this email
reached you by mistake,
please let us know so that
we can ensure that this
doesn’t happen in the
future and delete the
message.
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday,
December 28, 2022
3:41 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz
<[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Tyler, just following
392
up to obtain a copy
of the PVD that was
prepared for the
Eileen Penn Property
next door. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates,
Inc.
Christopher M.
Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects
Manager
The content of this email is
strictly confidential and
only intended for the
specified recipient. It is
forbidden to share the
email or its contents with
any third party without
the sender’s written
consent. If this email
reached you by mistake,
please let us know so that
we can ensure that this
doesn’t happen in the
future and delete the
message.
From: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
December 20, 2022
2:02 PM
To: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz
<[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Hey Chris,
The project is
tentatively scheduled
393
for February 21. I’ll be
in touch soon if I need
anything. I have taken
the photos and will
send you a copy when
I have finalized the
PVD.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
December 20, 2022
10:21 AM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Rouse
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg
<[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz
<[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates
<[email protected]>
Subject: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
We wanted to follow
up with you to see if
the Penn residence
had requested a PVD
formally, and if you
had already taken site
photos and prepared a
PVD?
We are all very eager
to move this project
forward to hearing.
If you could update us,
it would be most
appreciated.
Chris
Get Outlook for iOS
394
1 City Council
Subject: FW: Letter to City on Item 4A
From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:28 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to City on Item 4A
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in favor of your adopting the staff report recommending approval of this project.
I have known Ken and Jason for several years, and have worked for them as project architect on a couple of their projects. I did some early project analysis for this particular project, as well.
This is not a controversial project. It only finds itself in front of you due to our highly polarized planning commission, which, due to a recusal, split 2-2 on every single attempt at a resolution at the most recent hearing on this project.
This is not a controversial project. It is not trying to max out the TDSF of the parcel, it is not reducing setbacks, or proposing to develop in ESHA, on bluff tops, or in hazardous locations.
This is not a controversial project. It does not propose any portion of the structure over 18 feet in height that blocks a neighbor’s primary view.
This is not a controversial project. It is unfortunate that some of my professional colleagues, rather than giving honest and sound advice to adjacent homeowners who are obviously trying to limit development on their street, chose instead to see if they could find any meaningless chink in the armor, any nuanced phrased not yet parsed, or utilize any misdirection play to create controversy where none exists.
This is not a controversial project. The staff report is one of the strongest and clearest in a long time for a project that must make its way to the City Council, for it is usually at this point that you are asked to play Solomon and figure out how to split the baby. In this case, the staff report is very clear; no violation of the LIP is being proposed, no legal view is being blocked, no sensitive site is being defiled.
This is not a controversial project. It is a rather simple house, bigger than some, smaller than others. It does not lord over the site or the neighboring properties. It is certainly in keeping with the size and attributes of a Point Dume residence in 2023, and it would not be fair to try to force an applicant to build a home from another epoch on any property in Malibu, for any reasons not specifically enumerated in the LIP.
In the forty odd years that I have been an architect (thirty of them in Malibu) I have worked for many developers. Most of them start the process by asking how much can they get away with. Ken and Jason have never done that. They 395
2 continually work with people they find to be top quality designers and consultants, and I have always found them to want to do right by the code, and by Malibu. The project before you is just such an example of their approach. It deserves approval.
Sincerely,
Lester Tobias
396
1 City Council
Subject: 4B, October 9th City Council Meeting - Correspondence re 6734 Zumirez Drive Attachments: Ltr re 6734 Zumirez 100223[1].pdf
From: Christie Casas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:31 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrick McNicholas <[email protected]>
Subject: 4B, October 9th City Council Meeting - Correspondence re 6734 Zumirez Drive Good morning,
Attached please find correspondence in reference to 6734 Zumirez Drive.
Thank you,
Christie Casas
Legal Assistant
McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (310) 474 – 1582
Fax: (310) 475 – 7871
Email: [email protected]
Website: mcnicholaslaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. This e-mail message may contain material that is protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender at (310) 474-1582, delete this e-mail message from your computer, and destroy any and all copies.
397
October 2, 2023
Via Email:
[email protected]
Re: 4B, October 9th City Council Meeting
To: Planning Director Mollica and the Honorable City Council My wife and I purchased 6728 Zumirez Drive on April 5, 2023. My immediate neighbor to the south is Jason Rouse at 6734 Zumirez Drive. Mr. Rouse has informed me that he has a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) pending with a hearing on calendar. For the following reasons I have no objection to Mr. Rouse’s project (“the project”):
1. I retained Charles Santos, Charles Santos Planning, Inc., to review the project, all available documentation and information, and he concluded that the project was in compliance with all applicable regulations, codes and rules;
2. Mr. Rouse and I have met on several occasions to discuss the project. He has made accommodations to minimize the impact of the project on my property;
3. Mr. Rouse has informed me how he intends to minimize the impact of construction on the overall quality of living on the street;
4. Mr. Rouse has undertaken, at his own expense, to determine the the feasibility of burying SCE power lines. These power lines impact our respective properties as well as a portion of our street; and,
5. Mr. Rouse has acted both in good faith and as a good neighbor.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patrick McNicholas
398
1 City Council
Subject: October 9, 2023 Council Meeting: ITEM 4B (IBN PROPERTIES, LLC) CDP 20-068/ SPR 21-009) Applicant Comments and Submittal
Importance: High
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 5:56 PM
To: Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: October 9, 2023 Council Meeting: ITEM 4B (IBN PROPERTIES, LLC) CDP 20-068/ SPR 21-009) Applicant Comments and Submittal
Importance: High
Dear Honorable Mayor Councilmembers,
We write to you today on behalf our client, IBN ProperƟes, LLC, who is the project owner and applicant. The Planning Commission was unfortunately unable to reach a decision on our client’s applicaƟon (2-2 votes all failed to produce a decision by the City).
During the Planning Commission hearing there was much discussion about what consƟtutes a coastal bluff, a canyon bluff, and what is not considered to be a “bluff”. The below two videos provide very important context and expert opinion on this maƩer. Because The City’s Coastal Engineer does not plan to aƩend the upcoming Council meeƟng to explain these maƩers to the Council, we have taken the liberty of compiling the below videos, which we believe will provide the Council with valuable informaƟon when making its decision. Below you find criƟcal excerpts from the Commission hearing that should prove helpful in understanding the issues presented here.
We are available as always should you have any quesƟons or comments.
Watch First: City Coastal Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer Lauren Doyel Explains differences between a Coastal and Canyon Bluff and she Defines a “Coastal Bluff” In response to Commissioner Jennings question: https://www.youtube.com/live/Pba4eCojGcA?si=Lr5NviMVFHgX3iyb&t=8875 Watch Second: Client Video Addressing Bluff Safety Issues raised by Commissioner Mazza: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1qr64rds590rfzdskc908/Malibu1.mov?rlkey=vd3eyh4yvh1t0ga4 xumuhax5j&dl=0
399
2 Malibu1.mov
Shared with Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. 400
1 City Council
Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Richard, we have submiƩed our revised project to the City on March 3rd. Those plans are the ones that consƟtute our project. Thank you.
Ms. Peƫjohn, please make sure to circulate this email chain and our comments herein to the Council members for their review and consideraƟon. Thank you.
Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn 401
2 <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
As of several months ago, staff was given direcƟon at City Council hearings to not present and analyze modified projects post Planning Commission review. Consistent with our recent pracƟces staff will present the project that was presented to the Planning Commission. Similar to the Planning Commission hearing, you are welcome to submit your revised project and analysis for the consideraƟon of the Council.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Richard, the Council Policy you cite is not valid. This alleged policy has not been adopted by resoluƟon or other acƟon of the City Council and is not contained within the Published Council Policies Manual – See policy #14 below requiring that any policy of the Council must be in wriƟng and comport with principles of due process to be effecƟve]. Assuming arguendo, that the policy is law, this policy would only apply to Projects that the Planning Commission has taken final acƟon on (e.g., appeals), as was its intent.
The project plans/descripƟon were revised and submiƩed prior to the March 6, 2023, Planning Commission hearing as was the Applicant’s prerogaƟve. Pursuant to California Law the Applicant can modify, amend, or withdraw its development project applicaƟon at any Ɵme prior to the City taking Final AcƟon on the project.
If the City has a different posiƟon, we ask that the City provide the applicant with the applicable codes and [formally] adopted City Council policy(s) that prohibit a development project applicant from so modifying its proposal.
Because the project descripƟon was modified prior to Planning Commission hearing and prior to the City taking ANY acƟon on the project (something the City has sƟll not done), the project before the Council is the project as modified per the plans submiƩed on March 3, 2023.
402
3 Below is a link to all adopted Council Policies. You will note that the policy you reference has not been adopted by the City Council and even if it were, the policy would not apply to cases where the City has not taken final acƟon on the permit.
hƩps://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/46/Council-Policies?bidId= Best,
403
4 Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Hi Chirs,
Tyler’s comment below echo the direcƟon I have given him as well as that of the City Manager’s office.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
Staff has been directed by Council to present the same project that went before the Commission. We are not supposed to accept changes between meeƟngs. The revised plans you submiƩed were last minute (Friday aŌer hours before the Monday meeƟng and the City was experiencing technical difficulƟes) and placed within an email in which we were 404
5 expecƟng an exhibit for a bluff top quesƟon we got from a commissioner. Had we known before the meeƟng that revised plans were presented in that same email, we would have conƟnued the item.
Thus, since the project went forward and was deadlocked, the project being presented to Council the same as it was in March. You can present the new changes and the Council can consider but staff is doing as directed.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Patricia, I wanted to copy you and Rebecca on the below email which is regarding our project at 6734 Zumirez (Item 4B Appeal going before the City Council in 10 days).
The staff report & ResoluƟon references the wrong plans (not the most recent). Please see the below email and the aƩached for reference (comments on Staff report).
Call me if you have any quesƟons.
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Chris Deleau
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
405
6 Tyler,
I previously provided comments on the staff report that was prepared for the prior Planning Commission hearing (March 6, 2023). Some of those comments have not been addressed as staff is reusing the Commission staff report from earlier this year. To this end I wanted to reiterate and clarify the applicant’s posiƟon on several maƩers.
1. Property is not Visible from a Public Beach: In the view protecƟon secƟons of the staff report and resoluƟon (page 4 resoluƟon under pgh C.1.), the report states inaccurately that the project will be visible from a “public beach.” Paradise Cove beach is a privately owned beach and the Public view protecƟons in the LCP do not regulate/protect private beaches or views from private property.
2. Current Plans & Project DescripƟon: We want to confirm that City staff has reviewed the most recent project plans (as it states in the staff report that staff has NOT reviewed the most current plans and that those plans are not the ones under consideraƟon.) The current residence is designed to be 6,173 sq. Ō (aŌer eliminaƟon of the lower-level bedroom). The staff report and resoluƟon are sƟll referencing the old plans and this needs to be recƟfied prior to hearing with a Supplemental Agenda Report. CondiƟons of approval should reference the March 3, 2023 Plans, not the anƟquated plan set dated February 8, 2023. The project descripƟon in the staff report should be modified to reflect the current scope and .
3. Findings: Page 2 of the September 25, 2023 staff report should be deleted (see below provision). In order to move forward with the correct project descripƟon and findings staff should analyze the revised plans for conformance with the LCP/MMC.
4. Private View ProtecƟon (Janet Friesen): The PVD for our neighbor, Janet Freisen, located at 6744 Zumirez is not valid. The photos and PVD locaƟon, were taken from an unpermiƩed deck that was constructed, without the benefit of permits, back from 2017 to 2018. During this Ɵme, the enƟre rear deck was reconstructed and significantly enlarged (it’s a new deck). Primary View LocaƟons may only be located on rear decks or from inside the main viewing area of the home. Because the Deck was not legally permiƩed and constructed, it is not lawful or appropriate to take the neighbor’s private view from an area of bootlegged development. Please see the aƩached historical aerial photos illustraƟng that the deck is bootlegged and not appropriately considered as a Primary View LocaƟon.
406
7 5. Project Support: The prior staff report (February 23, 2023), beginning at page 3, discusses neighbor concerns. It should be noted that the applicant has modified the plans in a manner that is acceptable to several of its neighbors. The Zicklins (6716 Zumirez) have publicly acknowledged that the applicant’s architectural changes to the lower level has completely addressed their concerns. AddiƟonally, the Penn Family sold their property next door (6726) and the new owner has acknowledged his complete support for the project following the architectural changes made to the prior plans. Ryan Levis who previously represented the Penn family, does not represent the current property owners (who again have submiƩed a leƩer in support of the project). Jamie Harnish also commented previously on behalf of the Penn Family (6726) but Mr. Harnish does not represent the current property owner.
Should you have any quesƟons please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best Regards,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. 407
1 City Council
Frank Angel
Friday, October 6, 2023 9:40 AM
City Council
Trevor Rusin; Richard Mollica; Steve McClary
Project at 6734 Zumirez-10-09-2023 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4.B From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments: 2023-04-11 fpa ltr to trevor rusin.pdf
Dear Mayor Uhring and Members of the City Council,
This law firm has represented the Gil Friesen Trust on behalf of Ms. Janet Friesen before the Planning Commission on March 6, 2023, and we will appear on behalf of our client before the City Council in this matter on Monday, October 9 as well.
I am writing in advance of the October 9 hearing as I noted that the staff report for the abovereferenced agenda item inexplicably fails to attach my law firm’s letter of April 11, 2023 to interim City Attorney Trevor Rusin, demanding that the City Council decline coastal development permit (CDP) jurisdiction over the project proposed at 6734 Zumirez, because (a) under California law, the Planning Commission’s 2-2 tie vote amounts to an effective denial of the CDP application (REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 596, 607); and (b) the project applicant never appealed the denial to the City Council, as was necessary under California caselaw and the Malibu LIP itself, in order for the council to gain jurisdiction over the matter. No hearing may be scheduled before the City Council, unless the City Clerk receives an appeal in proper form. (Malibu LIP, § 13.20.1 (D).) And such an appeal was due no later than ten days after March 6. (See id., § 13.20.1 (B).) By law, an appellate administrative CDP decision-making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where the decision of the lower body with original CDP jurisdiction was not timely appealed. (State v.
Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 248.)
Simply put, when an applicant fails to carry their burden of proof before the Planning Commission to substantiate a vote to approve a CDP, i.e., fails to secure at least votes for approval, that CDP has been effectively denied. And where there is “a prescribed procedure” for appealing that denial to a city council (as there is in the Malibu LIP), that procedure must be followed. (Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1448-1449.) My law firm’s letter is attached to this email. It is part of the record of the city’s administrative proceedings in concerning the CDP application for the project.
Likewise missing from the staff report attachments is an August 28, 2023 email to Messrs. Rusin and Donegan, from Ms. Ginetta Giovinco, a partner with the municipal law firm of Richards, Watson Gershon and chair of their Coastal Department, agreeing with our analysis. Ms. Giovinco states in pertinent part:
“The CDP application failed to secure three votes in favor of it, and instead there was a 2-2 tie vote (following a recusal). This effectuated a denial of the CDP. We further understand that no appeal of this denial was timely filed. As a result, the City Council lacks the authority to consider the CDP application. [Par.] . . . . Based on the 2-2 vote and the lack of any timely appeal to bring this matter before the City Council, the City Council does not have jurisdiction to proceed with a public hearing on the CDP application. While we hope that the City will not proceed with 408
2 bringing this matter forward, we are prepared to pursue all appropriate legal remedies in the event that the City chooses to do so.”
(Highlighting added for emphasis.) Aside from the fact that neither Ms. Giovinco nor I received a response from the city’s legal counsel, to now omit our comments and those of Ms. Giovinco from the attachments to the staff report provided for your review is appalling. These are comments we specifically submitted to exhaust an administrative remedy with your council, i.e., a legal remedy we must exhaust prior to filing any court action seeking writ of mandate relief to declare null and void any decision by the City Council this Monday to arrogate unto itself CDP jurisdiction over the CDP application in this case.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the consequence of the applicant’s failure to appeal the denial is that they must resubmit a new CDP application, to be heard and determined by the Planning Commission. (See Malibu LIP section 13.23.) Having had ample time to do so after neglecting to appeal back in March, the applicant cannot not now complain about delay and neglect of their own making. But the sky isn’t falling and the applicant may still file an application for an LCPcompliant CDP, avoiding development in the canyon bluff. In the end, this is preferable to winning a Pyrrhic victory in the form of a CDP approval granted in excess of the City Council’s jurisdiction. Preferable to the City and the applicant’s own interests.
Best,
__________________________________________________________ Frank P. Angel | O | C
Angel Law
angellaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
409
1 City Council
From: Frank Angel
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 10:01 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Trevor Rusin; Richard Mollica; Steve McClary
Subject: Re: Project at 6734 Zumirez-10-09-2023 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4.B This sentence should read as follows:
“Simply put, when an applicant fails to carry their burden of proof before the Planning Commission to substantiate a vote to approve a CDP, i.e., fails to secure at least three votes for approval, that CDP has been effectively denied.”
My apologies for the typo.
Sent from my iPad
Frank P. Angel
@FrankPAngel1
www.angellaw.com
o
c
On Oct 6, 2023, at 9:40 AM, Frank Angel wrote:
Simply put, when an applicant fails to carry their burden of proof before the Planning Commission to substantiate a vote to approve a CDP, i.e., fails to secure at least votes for approval, that CDP has been effectively denied.
410
411
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023