Agenda Item # 3.B.8.
Additionally, GFS’s long history of supporting the Finance Division provides invaluable institutional knowledge. GFS has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City. Staff requests the City Council to authorize the agreement.
The term of the agreement will be three years, July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, with an estimated annual amount of $54,500, or a not-to-exceed of $163,500, for the term of the agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement with Governmental Financial Services 2 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into as of May 13, 2024, by and between the City of Malibu (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Governmental Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").
The City and the Consultant agree as follows:
R E C I T A L S
A. The City does not have the personnel able and/or available to perform the services required under this Agreement.
B. The City desires to contract out for consulting services for certain projects relating to bookkeeping, accounting services and State Controller’s Report of Financial Transactions.
C. The Consultant warrants to the City that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities to perform properly and timely the services under this Agreement.
D. The City desires to contract with the Consultant to perform the services as described in Exhibit A of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Consultant agree as follows:
1.0 SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANT’S SERVICES. The Consultant agrees to provide the services and perform the tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, attached to and made part of this Agreement, except that, to the extent that any provision in Exhibit A conflicts with this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement govern. The Scope of Work may be amended from time to time by way of a written directive from the City, when also agreed upon in writing by Consultant. Consultant, at the Consultant’s sole discretion, will determine whether or not Consultant is available to accept a City project.
2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement will become effective on July 1, 2024, and will remain in effect for a period of three years from said date unless otherwise expressly extended and agreed to by both parties or terminated by either party as provided herein.
3.0 CITY AGENT. The City Manager, or his or her designee, for the purposes of this Agreement, is the agent for the City; whenever approval or authorization is required, Consultant understands that the City Manager, or his or her designee, has the authority to provide that approval or authorization.
4.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. The City shall pay the Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the Scope of Work’s fee and cost schedule. The cost of services shall be $54,500 annually, and shall not exceed a total amount of $163,500 for the term of the agreement, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager, or his or her designee.
Attachment #1
3 Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
4.1 The Consultant shall submit to the City, by no later than the 10th day of each month, its bill for services itemizing the fees and costs incurred during the previous month. The City shall pay the Consultant all uncontested amounts set forth in the Consultant's bill within 30 days after it is received.
5.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The Consultant represents that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in any real property located in the City which may be affected by the services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement.
The Consultant further represents that in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it.
5.1 The Consultant represents that no City employee or official has a material financial interest in the Consultant’s business. During the term of this Agreement and/or as a result of being awarded this contract, the Consultant shall not offer, encourage or accept any financial interest in the Consultant’s business by any City employee or official.
5.2 If a portion of the Consultant’s services called for under this Agreement shall ultimately be paid for by reimbursement from and through an agreement with a developer of any land within the City or with a City franchisee, the Consultant warrants that it has not performed any work for such developer/franchisee within the last 12 months, and shall not negotiate, offer or accept any contract or request to perform services for that identified developer/franchisee during the term of this Agreement.
6.0 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
6.1 Termination. Either the City Manager or the Consultant may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving the other party ten (10) days written notice of such termination and the effective date thereof. Upon cancellation, the City will pay the Consultant for services performed to the date of termination.
6.1.1 In the event of such termination, all finished or unfinished documents, reports, photographs, films, charts, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, maps, or other documentation prepared by or in the possession of the Consultant under this Agreement shall be returned to the City.
6.1.2 If the Consultant or the City fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if the Consultant or the City violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the Consultant or the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date of such termination.
6.2 Non-Assignability. The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City.
6.3 Non-Discrimination. The Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, 4 2 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
creed, gender, color, national origin, or sexual orientation in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of the Federal, State, County and City governments.
6.4 Insurance. The Consultant shall submit to the City certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements no less than one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to comply with all provisions in the attached Exhibit B which is incorporated herein.
6.5 Indemnification.
Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees, agents, and/or volunteers (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of services under this Agreement, only up to the amount of insurance coverage set forth in Exhibit B. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct.
6.6 Compliance with Applicable Law. The Consultant and the City shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of the federal, state, county, and city governments, including, without limitation, Malibu Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 Minimum Wage.
6.7 Independent Contractor. This Agreement is by and between the City and the Consultant and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of agency, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture, or association, as between the City and the Consultant.
6.7.1. The Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall have no power to incur any debt or obligation for or on behalf of the City. Neither the City nor any of its officers or employees shall have any control over the conduct of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant’s employees, except as herein set forth, and the Consultant expressly warrants not to, at any time or in any manner, represent that it, or any of its agents, servants or employees are in any manner employees of the City, it being distinctly understood that the Consultant is and shall at all times remain to the City a wholly independent contractor and the Consultant's obligations to the City are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement.
6.8 Copyright. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the Consultant.
6.9 Legal Construction.
(a) This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California 5 3 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed under the laws of the State of California.
(b) City and Consultant and their counsels have reviewed and revised this Agreement jointly. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the persons who drafted its various provisions. Each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though each of the parties participated equally in the drafting of same, and any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement.
(c) The article and section, captions and headings herein have been inserted for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction.
(d) Whenever in this Agreement the context may so require, the masculine gender shall be deemed to refer to and include the feminine and neuter, and the singular shall refer to and include the plural.
6.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and as so executed shall constitute an agreement which shall be binding upon all parties hereto.
6.11 Files. All files of the Consultant pertaining to the City shall be and remain the property of the City. The Consultant will control the physical location of such files during the term of this Agreement and shall be entitled to retain copies of such files upon termination of this Agreement. Consultant shall not distribute information gained during preparation of any work product to anyone unless directed by the City.
6.12 Waiver. Waiver by any party hereto of any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant hereof.
City will not be liable to Consultant for any indirect, special, or consequential damages, including lost profits or revenue, arising from or relating to this agreement, regardless if the City was advised of the possibility of such loss or damage. In no event will the City’s liability for direct damages arising from or related to this agreement, for any cause whatsoever, and regardless of the form of action, whether in contract or tort, exceed the amounts paid to Consultant by the City under this agreement.
6.13 Mitigation of Damages. In all such situations arising out of this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to avoid and minimize the damages resulting from the conduct of the other party.
6.14 Partial Invalidity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
6.15 Attorneys' Fees. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each will 6 4 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
bear his/her or its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees arising out of and/or connected with the negotiation, drafting and execution of the Agreement, and all matters arising out of or connected therewith except that, in the event any action is brought by any party hereto to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to all other relief to which that party or those parties may be entitled.
6.16 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the whole agreement between the City and the Consultant, and neither party has made any representations to the other except as expressly contained herein. Neither party, in executing or performing this Agreement, is relying upon any statement or information not contained in this Agreement. Any changes or modifications to this Agreement must be made in writing appropriately executed by both the City and the Consultant.
6.17 Notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given by depositing said notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
CITY: Steve McClary CONSULTANT: Julie Matsumoto
City Manager Governmental Financial Services
City of Malibu 3972 Barranca Parkway
23825 Stuart Ranch Road Suite J-411
Malibu, CA 90265-4861 Irvine, CA 92606
TEL (310) 456-2489 x 226 (949) 533-2189
FAX (310) 456-2760 [email protected]
7 5 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
6.18 Warranty of Authorized Signatories and Acceptance of Facsimile or Electronic Signatures. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement 011 behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign. The Parties agree that this Contract, agreements ancillary to this Contract, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Contract will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered physically or by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
7.0 GENERAL T£RMS AND CONDITIONS. (City and Consultant initials required at EITHER 7.1 or 7.2)
7.1 Disclosure Required. By their respective initials next to this paragraph, City and Consultant hereby acknowledge that Consultant is a "consultant" for the purposes of the California Political Reform Act because Consultant's duties would require him or her to make one or more of the governmental decisions set forth in Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation l 8700.3(a) or otherwise serves in a staff capacity for which disclosure would otherwise be required were Consultant employed by the City. Consultant hereby acknowledges his or her assumingoffice, annual, and leaving-office financial reporting obligations under the California Political Reform Act and the City's Conflict oflnterest Code and agrees to comply with those obligations at his or her expense. Prior to consultant commencing services hereunder, the City's Manager shall prepare and deliver to consultant a memorandum detailing the extent of Consultant's disclosure obligations in accordance with the City's Conflict of Interest Code.
City Initials __ _
Consultant Initials ---
7.2 Disclosure not Required. By their initials next to this paragraph, City and Consultant hereby acknowledge that Consultant is not a "consultant" for the purpose of the California Political Reform Act because Consultant's duties and responsibilities are not within the scope of the definition of consultant in Fair Political Practice Commission Regulation 18700.3(a) and is otherwise not serving in staff capacity in accordance with the City's Conflict of Interest Code.
City Initials __ _
Consultant Initials j rY)
6 of 13
8 Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
This Agreement is executed on May 13, 2024, at Malibu, California, and effective as of July 1, 2024.
CONSULT ANT:
�y�� : JULIE MATSUMOTO, Principal
CITY OF MALIBU:
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
ATTEST:
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
7 of 13
9 Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
10 8 of 13
11 9 of 13
12 10 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE LANGUAGE
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work and/or services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide, and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned, or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $100,000 combined single limit for each accident.
Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement.
OTHER PROVISIONS OR REQUIREMENTS
Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City for the contract period and any additional length of time required thereafter. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Duration of Coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the contract period, and any additional length of time required thereafter, insurance against claims which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees, or subconsultants.
City’s Rights of Enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City may cancel this Agreement.
13 11 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California. Consultant’s professional liability insurance is currently provided by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and auto insurance is provided by State Farm Insurance. The City agrees that Philadelphia Indemnity and State Farm are acceptable insurance companies. Any changes to these insurance companies will be provided to the City via Certificates of Insurance, at which point the City may cancel this Agreement if so desired.
Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide the City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. If any of the Consultant’s insurers are unwilling to provide such notice, then Consultant shall have the responsibility of notifying the City immediately in the event of Consultant’s failure to renew any of the required insurance coverages, or insurer’s cancellation or non-renewal.
Prohibition Of Undisclosed Coverage Limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
Pass Through Clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party who is brought onto or involved in the project/service by Consultant (hereinafter collectively “Subcontractor”), provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. However, in the event Consultant’s Subcontractor cannot comply with this requirement, which proof must be submitted to the City, Consultant may still be able to utilize the Subcontractor provided Consultant shall be required to ensure that its Subcontractor provide and maintain insurance coverage and endorsements sufficient to the specific risk of exposure involved with Subcontractor’s scope of work and services, with limits less than required of the Consultant, but in all other terms consistent with the Consultant’s requirements under this Agreement. This provision does not relieve the Consultant of its contractual obligations under the Agreement and/or limit its liability to the amount of insurance coverage provided by its subcontractors. This provision is intended solely to provide Consultant with the ability to utilize a Subcontractor who may be otherwise qualified to perform the work or services but may not carry the same insurance limits as required of the Consultant under this Agreement given the limited scope of work or services provided by the subcontractor. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with Subcontractors, and others engaged in the project and/or services, will be submitted to City for review.
City’s Right to Revise Specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days’ advance written notice of such change. If such a change results in substantial additional costs to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate the Consultant’s compensation. 14 12 of 13
Agreement for Professional Services
Governmental Financial Services
Consultant may cancel the Agreement if the City changes the amounts and types of insurance required.
Self-Insured Retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter.
Timely Notice Of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
Additional Insurance. The consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
15 13 of 13
Agenda Item # 3.B.9
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: April 25, 2024 Meeting date: May 13, 2024 Subject: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence LLC.
FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is required. Funding for this agreement is included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2023-24 in Account No. 602-7060-5100 (Information Systems – Professional Services) and the FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget in Account No. 310-9124-5100 (Land Management System-Professional Services).
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the Development Services Updated Software priority identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.
DISCUSSION: On August 27, 2018, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence LLC for information technology administrative services to develop the City’s IT Assessment and Strategic Plan. The project was launched in October 2018 but was put on hold in the aftermath of the Woolsey Fire and the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the clear need for permitting software, staff reengaged SDI and modified the scope of work with Amendment 2 in May 2022 to assist with pursuing the procurement of permitting software, also referred to as a land management system (LMS).
The consultant coordinated with staff to identify clear specifications of a new system, conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP), and interview potential vendors. This was a detailed and arduous process that narrowed down the best options for a LMS provider for the City. The City momentarily paused the project before negotiating acquisition and committing to a system in order to give consideration to operational and staffing needs for the huge undertaking that would commence with proceeding to the next step.
City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item
3.B.9
1
Agenda Item # 3.B.9
In the meantime, staff worked through recommendations received from the Comprehensive Development Services Review (CDSR). Staff have been able to improve operations and implement an interim solution for application submittal and review through online portal improvements. These improvements have provided the City team with revamped workflows and processes, as well as some operational buffer, to be in a better position to begin working on a full LMS. A full LMS is a significant project that could take up to two years to implement.
In order to facilitate a LMS project, one of the significant recommendations of the CDSR (Recommendation #22) is to hire a consultant project manager with experience implementing the selected LMS to expedite implementation. SDI is the best and most appropriate consultant project manager for this effort. Having worked through the RFP process and supported the City with other engagements, there is no other consultant project manager that will have the knowledge and understanding of the City as well as SDI. Their services are specialized and essential to this effort.
Malibu Municipal Code 2.56.130(b).3 creates an exception to the City’s competitive bidding process for certain services: “[w]here the contract is for specialized or professional services such as, but not limited to, services rendered by architects, engineers, attorneys, appraisers, geologists, and other specialized consultants.” It would be impractical and unreasonable to find these specialized services from a better consultant to lead this effort than SDI. SDI has a demonstrated history and project knowledge that cannot be found by another bidder. Further, another bidder would require many hours to get up to speed on the status of the project and this would come at a substantial cost to the City. Thus, staff is recommending that we proceed with this Amendment 3 to retain SDI as the LMS Project Consultant.
As outlined in the proposal, SDI will lead two distinct phases. Phase 1-Initiate, is the broad overview and laying the roadmap for the project. Phase 2-Implement, will be the major lifting of the project that will require significant project team staff time, development, and testing. These types of systems require that the organization build out the system based on workflows and organizational needs, so it is not as simple as plug and play. Building out a LMS requires significant support and guidance from an expert consultant project manager, SDI, as identified by the recommendation in the CDSR.
The proposal is estimating 1,040 hours of project management consulting at a rate of $185 per hour, for an estimated total of $192,400, and estimated incidentals of $14,000, for a total not-to-exceed of $206,400.
ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence LLC
2 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Malibu on May 13, 2024, by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, hereinafter referred to as City, and SDI Presence LLC, hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
The City and the Consultant agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. On August 27, 2018, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for consulting services for certain project relating to information technology administrative services (the "Agreement").
B. On November 23, 2020, the City entered into Amendment No. 1 with Consultant to extend the term to December 1, 2022.
C. On May 9, 2022, the City entered into Amendment No. 2 with Consultant to increase the scope, extend the term and increase the budget.
D. The City desires to amend the Agreement to increase the scope, extend the term and increase the Compensation for Services, and Consultant has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Section 1.0 - Scope of the Consultant's Services, of the Agreement, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
2. Section 2.0 - Term of Agreement, of the Agreement, is hereby extended to June 30, 2026.
3. Section 4.0 - Compensation for Services, of the Agreement, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. The cost of work described in Exhibit A to the Agreement shall not exceed $206,400, for a total not to exceed amount for the entire Agreement of $360,150.
4. The Parties agree that this Amendment will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered physically or by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
5. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment No. 3 remain in full force and effect.
This Agreement is executed on __________ , at Malibu, California, and effective as of May 13, 2024.
ATTEST:
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
CITY OF MALIBU:
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
Attachment #1
3 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement
SDI Presence LLC
By: SHAREE L. WOLFF �
Title: CFO
4 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 1 | Pag e
January 24, 2024
Mr. Joseph Toney, Assistant City Manager
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Land Management & Permitting System Implementation Project Management Services Dear Mr. Toney:
SDI Presence LLC is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Malibu to provide professional consulting services to assist the City with the implementation of its recently selected enterprise land management and permitting system (LMS). We believe our proposal will clearly demonstrate that SDI offers the City an experienced, proven, and qualified consulting team to support the City’s goal of implementing an enterprise LMS to meet the needs of the organization.
Our Company. SDI is a management consulting firm with a singular focus on helping public sector clients implement and use information technology. The company was founded on the belief that project success starts with effective planning. SDI has delivered planning, procurement, and project management services to more than 200 California public agencies.
Our Understanding. We understand that the City is interested in utilizing an SDI project management resource to oversee the successful implementation of the LMS application that was recently selected by the City. SDI is prepared to provide project management support to help ensure the new system is fully implemented and utilized by the City.
Our Approach. SDI will utilize established and recognized project management processes to ensure the successful launch of the land management system.
Our Success. SDI has been delivering successful IT planning, procurement, and project management services to California public sector clients since 1999. As project management professionals, SDI recognizes the need to apply project management processes and standards to our consulting engagements. To ensure the City’s objectives are met, SDI’s approach will include the following:
♦ Use of a structured, proven approach to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the City’s requirements and needs
♦ Fully identifying and disclosing potential risks and realistic risk mitigation strategies ♦ Managing the expectations of users and stakeholders throughout the process to ensure a realistic level of expectation upon selection of the enterprise LMS system ♦ Minimizing disruption to daily City operations
♦ Establishing solid project management practices including schedule, time and resource management; communications management; issues management; risk management; and quality management
5 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 2 | Pag e
Our Experience. SDI has successfully completed numerous enterprise implementation projects for clients both large and small, and we provide a detailed list of past clients in this proposal. In terms of land management systems, SDI has successfully completed similar projects for the cities of Paso Robles, Newport Beach, Glendale, Indio, Chino Hills, and we are currently underway with implementations in West Hollywood and Yucaipa. Most indicative of our success is that our clients are willing to ask us back to perform additional work and refer us to other organizations without hesitation.
If you have any questions about this proposal, I can be reached at 714-975-4150 or via email at [email protected]. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a proposal and look forward to partnering with the City of Malibu.
Sincerely,
Patrick Griffin, Managing Director
Advisory & Consulting Practice
6 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 3 | Pag e
Company Background and Experience
Company Qualifications
SDI is a management consulting firm that helps public sector clients enhance their use of information technology. SDI has worked with more than 190 California state and local government agencies to complete Request for Proposal (RFP) development and Procurement Management efforts, IT Assessments, IT Strategic Plans, GIS Strategic Plans, Network Assessments, IT Service Level Assessments, Policy / Procedure Documentation development, Project Management Organization implementations, Feasibility Studies. Figure 1 illustrates SDI’s full range of IT services.
CONSULTING
TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY PRESENCESM
MANAGED
SERVICES APPLICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
• New System
Implementation
Project
Management
• Organizational
Change
Management
• Quality
Assurance
Services
• IT Strategic
Planning
• IT/Project
Assessments
• IT Governance
• Interim
CIO/CTO
• Digital
Transformation
Services
• Requirements
Assessment
• Selection and
Procurement
• Business Process
Reengineering
• QA/Testing
• Project
Management
• Implementation
and Integration
• Network
Engineering
• Data Center
• Hybrid Cloud
• Hyperconverged
Infrastructure/
Software
Defined Data
Center (SDDC)
• VoIP Services
• Organization
Policies and
Procedures
• Enterprise
Vulnerability
Assessments
• Cyber
Awareness
Training
• Cyber
Remediation
• Services
• Disaster
Recovery/
Business
Continuity
• Identity
Management
• Integrated
Public Safety
Systems
• ITSM Service
Desk
• IT
Infrastructure
Managed
Services
• Enterprise
Application
Managed
Services
• Managed
Security
• Services
• Public Safety
Systems
Managed
Services
• Real Estate
Data Managed
Services
Figure 1 - SDI Services
SDI is headquartered in Chicago IL with west coast offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Dallas / Fort Worth. SDI employs over 300 full-time staff, including the California team of approximately 20 consultants. Our consultant team is open to working 100% remotely or a combination of remote and onsite, depending on the City’s preference. 7 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 4 | Pag e
Company Experience
As shown in Table 1, SDI has a strong record of accomplishment in providing technology consulting services for California public sector clients. A significant number of our client projects are of similar scope and size to what the City of Malibu is seeking.
Table 1 - SDI Local Government Experience IT Strategic Plans IT Assessments IT Policies & Procedures Project Management IT GovernanceDisaster RecoveryPlanningSystem Selection& ProcurementsOther ManagementConsulting Municipalities
Alameda, CA
Anaheim, CA
Belmont, CA
Beverly Hills, CA
Branson, MO
Burbank, CA
Burlingame, CA
Carson, CA
Carson City, NV
Chino Hills, CA
Concord, CA
Coronado, CA
Costa Mesa, CA
Cupertino, CA
Davis, CA
El Segundo, CA
Fairfield, CA
Fremont, CA
Fresno, CA
Galt, CA
Gilroy, CA
Glendale, CA
Half Moon Bay, CA
Huntington Beach, CA
Indio, CA
Industry, CA
Irvine, CA
La Quinta, CA
Laguna Beach, CA
Long Beach, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Banos, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Merced, CA
Millbrae, CA
Napa, CA
Newport Beach, CA
8 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 5 | Pag e
IT Strategic Plans IT Assessments IT Policies & Procedures Project Management IT Governance Disaster Recovery PlanningSystem Selection& ProcurementsOther ManagementConsulting Novato, CA
Ontario, CA
Orange, CA
Oxnard, CA
Pasadena, CA
Paso Robles, CA
Petaluma, CA
Pismo Beach, CA
Pleasant Hill, CA
Rancho Cordova, CA
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Redlands, CA
Redwood City, CA
Rohnert Park, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
San Rafael, CA
San Ramon, CA
Santa Clara, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Stockton, CA
Suisun City, CA
Sunnyvale, CA
Vacaville, CA
Ventura, CA
Visalia, CA
Walnut Creek, CA
Watsonville, CA
Counties
Douglas County, Nevada
El Paso County, Texas
Lane County, Oregon
Placer County, CA
Riverside County, CA
San Benito County, CA
San Diego County, CA
Santa Clara County, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Special Districts
Central Contra Costa Sanitation District
Chino Valley Independent Fire District
Cosumnes Community Services District
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
East Valley Water District
Lake Arrowhead Community Services
9 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 6 | Pag e
IT Strategic Plans IT Assessments IT Policies & Procedures Project Management IT Governance Disaster Recovery PlanningSystem Selection& ProcurementsOther ManagementConsulting Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Monterey Regional Water P.C.A.
Moulton Niguel Water District
North Tahoe Public Utilities District
Port of Los Angeles
Rancho California Water District
Riverside Co. Trans. Commission
Sacramento Area Sewer District
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Bernardino County Fire
Santa Clara County Fire Department
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Silicon Valley Clean Water
Silicon Valley Power
South Tahoe Public Utility District
West Basin Municipal Water District
Zone 7 Water Agency
State of California
Assoc. of Regional Center Agencies
CA Correctional Health Care Services
California Highway Patrol
10 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 7 | Pag e
Project Approach
SDI’s implementation project management framework includes two major Milestones: Initiate and Implement. The milestones, tasks associated with each milestone, and deliverables coming out of each task, are described in detail below.
Figure 2 – Implementation Methodology
In the tables below, SDI has identified the activities and deliverables to be completed as part of this stage of the project. It should be noted that many of the tasks in Phase 2 – Implement will be repeated for the individual implementation of specific modules within the software suite (i.e. – permits, customer portal, plan review, etc.).
Phase 1 – Initiate
As project management professionals, SDI recognizes the importance of applying a formal project management framework to ensure that the project meets objectives and is delivered on-time and onbudget. The purpose of the Initiate phase is to prepare for, and initiate, the project under a well-defined project plan. This phase includes confirming our understanding, as well as the understanding of the stakeholders, regarding the scope of work and the process for accomplishing the overall objectives of the project. The following table presents the specific tasks, activities, and deliverables that will be undertaken during the Initiate stage.
Table 2 – Phase 1 Initiate Activities and Deliverables
Task 1.1 Project Scope Review
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will meet with the City’s Project Sponsor to review the scope of work, project timeline, deliverables, and other procurement documentation to confirm project details before formal kickoff.
11 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 8 | Pag e
Task 1.2 Kickoff Meeting
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will develop a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation that will describe the project. SDI will lead a Project Kickoff Meeting which will be scheduled by the City to include all anticipated project participants. The primary goal of the Project Kickoff Meeting is to ensure that all project participants have a common understanding of the process and project objectives.
DELIVERABLE: Project Kickoff Presentation
Task 1.3 Project Scope and Baseline Schedule Update
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will finalize and deliver the project scope and plan, along with communication and status reporting plans and a baseline schedule, as agreed with by the City’s Project Sponsor.
DELIVERABLE: Project Scope and Baseline Plan
Phase 2 – Implement
The cornerstone of success for the system implementation portion of the project will be how well it is managed. This will include thorough planning, execution, and monitoring of the plan, corrective action when required, and final close-out of the project. SDI’s project management services will enable the City to manage the big picture, keep stakeholders informed, and ensure successful planning, oversight, and completion of the project while mitigating project risk.
In the table below, SDI has identified the activities and deliverables to be completed as part of this phase of the project. It should be noted that many of the tasks in Phase 2 will be repeated for the individual implementation of specific modules within the software suite (i.e. – permits, customer portal, plan review, etc.).
Table 3 – Phase 2 Implement Activities and Deliverables Task 2.1 Update Project Plan
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will work with the software vendor’s Project Manager to update the Project Plan, including the following basic elements that will be defined for the system implementation activities:
• Tasks and Subtasks
• Milestones and Deliverables
• Detailed Project Schedule
DELIVERABLE: Updated Project Plan
12 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 9 | Pag e
Task 2.2 Monitor Project Execution and Control
TASK DESCRIPTION: Working with the software vendor’s Project Manager, SDI will monitor the project execution using all the plans, schedules, procedures, and standards prepared for the project. This will include ensuring that regular status reports are provided and discussed at project review meetings with the Project Sponsor and appropriate participants. These reviews will include performance measures for the completion of tasks and activities in accordance with the project plan, communication plan, risk management plan, and quality assurance plan.
DELIVERABLES: Project Status Reports, Risk/Issue Tracking Log, Vendor Deliverables Tracking Log / Punch List
Task 2.3 Assist with Business Process and Change Management Activities TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will assist the City with identification of areas where a business process change may result in improved efficiencies. SDI will provide suggestions and recommendations for business process improvements in conjunction with the City’s project team and utilizing the best practices recommendations documented previously.
Task 2.4 Support Establishment of Optimal Software and Hardware Configuration TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will assist the City in defining the technical system software and hardware environments required for the new system’s operation including licenses for development, testing/training, and production environments. SDI will provide oversight for identifying, procuring, and installing the software and hardware configurations to ensure the system is properly sized to meet the City’s requirements. This activity will also include coordinating the installation of required application, database, and web servers as well as necessary network architecture and infrastructure components.
DELIVERABLE: Software and Hardware Acquisition and Installation Oversight Task 2.5 Assist with System Setup and Configuration
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will assist the City to ensure that the new system is set up to support the City’s unique operating requirements. This activity will include establishing security protocols for users along with specific workflow processes for the new system and setting configuration options and customizing parameters for system upload/download processes to Microsoft products such as Excel, Word, Access, and Outlook, and to other third-party products.
DELIVERABLE: System Setup and Configuration Oversight
Task 2.6 Define System Data Conversion and Testing Requirements TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will assist in defining conversion and testing requirements for items that must be converted into the new system, including financial data from the existing system and in-house developed applications. SDI will work directly with the software vendor’s conversion team to ensure that data extracted from the City’s existing system is properly mapped to the new system.
DELIVERABLE: Data Conversion Requirements and System Testing Task 2.7 Assist with Development of Required Integrations Between Software Systems TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will work with the various software entities to develop integration points between the various systems. SDI will oversee development of the desired data integration points and will ensure testing is completed to validate the integrations are operating properly and accurately.
DELIVERABLE: System Integrations Support
13 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 10 | Pag e
Task 2.8 Support User Acceptance Testing
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will verify and validate acceptance test results for implementation of the new system that will include:
• System documentation • Functional tests
• Stress tests • Security tests
• Access control capabilities • Backup, restore and restart tests • User acceptance test results
DELIVERABLE: Independent Verification and Validation
Task 2.9 Coordinate Training for Users and System Administrators TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will assist the City in identifying training requirements and creating schedules for both users and technical personnel. Training should be sufficiently detailed and comprehensive to ensure that City staff will be able to effectively use the system and support the system after implementation.
DELIVERABLE: Training Requirements and Schedule
Task 2.10 Complete Readiness Assessment and Ensure Operational Readiness TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will develop a checklist to be used to assess the City’s operational readiness for the new system implementation, including:
• Staffing plan • System maintenance procedures
• Operational procedures • Disaster backup recovery plan • Change requests • Modifications or enhancements
• Refresher training • Software license renewal
• Technology refreshment • Hardware replacement
• Preventive maintenance
DELIVERABLE: Readiness Assessment Checklist
Task 2.11 Monitor Phased Implementation and Cutover
TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will oversee a phased cut-over where different modules are implemented and moved into production on a staggered schedule. As each module is placed into production, the software vendor will be required to provide assistance for system administration, helpdesk, and onsite user support for each major implementation phase or module.
DELIVERABLE: Oversight of Phased Implementation and Cutover into Production Task 2.12 Prepare Post Implementation Evaluation Report TASK DESCRIPTION: SDI will conduct a post-implementation evaluation review (PIER) after system implementation to provide the City with information to help it evaluate the contribution and measure the value gained by implementing the new system. The PIER will provide for organizational learning by documenting the success of the project and the reasons for that success. It will also identify areas the City may wish to revisit in terms of full implementation of all modules, related features, and functionality.
DELIVERABLE: Post Implementation Evaluation Report
14 Proposal to the City of Malibu Land Management & Permitting System Implementation 11 | Pag e
Project Costs
Based on our experience with past implementation projects, we recommend the City consider project management support services for a minimum of 20 hours per week over the course of the implementation timeline. Assuming a 12-month timeline for implementation, this would equate to 1,040 hours. SDI’s 2024 rates are $185 per hour for Project Manager. Applying this rate to the recommended level of effort yields a budget of $192,400. Additionally, during project management activities, we anticipate our resource being onsite for up to six days per month, resulting in travel expenses for mileage, meals, and hotel. We estimate a travel budget of approximately $14,000, bringing the total cost estimate for project management services during implementation to $206,400 based on the hours estimates above.
SDI will bill the City monthly for actual labor and travel costs incurred in the prior month. Invoices will include detail regarding the number of hours worked by date, along with a description of the activities performed by our consultant team. For travel expenses, SDI will provide receipts substantiating travel costs incurred.
15
Agenda Item # 4.A.
City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item
4.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Renée Neermann, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: April 25, 2024 Meeting date: May 13, 2024 Subject: Proposed Schedule of Fees Fiscal Year 2024-25
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 24-18 establishing the Schedule of Fees for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The Schedule of Fees establishes the amount the City can charge for fees for service. The City’s annual budget typically includes approximately $5.0 million in revenue from Service Charges and approximately $4.0 million in revenue from Licenses and Permits.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.
DISCUSSION: A fee study is currently underway as referenced later in this staff report.
The current fee schedule proposal allows for a schedule to be in place until the fee study and an updated schedule is ready for Council adoption and subsequent implementation.
It is anticipated that a new fee schedule will be provided to Council for consideration and possible adoption early in FY 2024-25.
State law mandates that agencies such as the City of Malibu charge customers only the fees necessary to recover costs for the services provided and prohibits charging fees beyond the services rendered. If the FY 2024-25 fee schedule is approved, the revised fees will not generate funds that exceed this standard.
Agenda Item # 4.A.
In FY 2015-16, the City completed a comprehensive fee study that analyzed all fees and charges for services. The rates established in the fee study have been used as a base amount that have been increased annually with a cost-of-living adjustment.
Due to the annual increase based on inflation only, and changes in operations and staffing since FY 2015-16, the City was overdue for conducting a study to ensure fees are in alignment with full cost recovery; such studies typically result in some fees being updated, removed, or new ones added. To initiate a review of the City’s existing fee structure, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on August 3, 2023, and closed on August 29, 2023. The City chose and entered into an agreement with Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. (Matrix) in November 2023, with initiation in January 2024.
The project is underway, and Matrix is conducting a comprehensive study that will include, data collection, interviews, production of a cost allocation plan (for internal and indirect costs), an updated Schedule of Fees, presentation of results, and a new fee workbook for updating annually.
On April 10, 2024, the Administration and Finance Subcommittee (A&F) discussed the FY 2024-25 Schedule of Fees and recommended that no changes be applied to the existing schedule of fees until the study is finalized and any proposed changes or new fee recommendations have been reviewed and accepted. The study is anticipated to be completed by the end of FY 2023-24. A revised fee schedule will be provided to Council for consideration early in FY 2024-25, and if adopted, will replace this proposed fee schedule.
The proposed Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25 is attached for review.
ATTACHMENTS: Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25
RESOLUTION NO. 24-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU
ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND
FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Schedule of Fees. The City Council finds that the fees for permit processing and other services do not exceed the reasonable cost of services directly conferred to the payer and are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee. The City Council further finds that the fees for costs of regulation do not exceed the reasonable cost of regulation by the City.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Schedule of Fees attached hereto as Exhibit A).
SECTION3. The City Council finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15273(a)(1) of the CEQA Regulations because CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and does not apply to the establishment or modification of charges by the City to meet operating expenses. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment and as such, this Resolution is not subject to CEQA. This Resolution merely adopts or updates fees to partially offset costs of services and does not undertake any project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Thus, this action is exempt from CEQA,
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner provided by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fee increases and new fees shall be effective sixty days from the date of adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of May 2024. _____________________________
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Resolution No. 24-18
_____________________
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director Reviewed by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: April 24, 2024 Meeting date: May 13, 2024 Subject: Appeal No. 23-004 - Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24 (22959 Pacific Coast Highway; Appellant: Malibu Township Council; Applicant: Burdge and Associates Architects, Inc.; Property Owner: Surfrider Plaza, LLC) (Continued from the March 25, 2024 meeting)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 24-19 (Exhibit A) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20- 003 and Initial Study No. 20-003, denying Appeal No. 23-004 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067 for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, rooftop bar area, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a new onsite wastewater treatment system and authorization for the Planning Director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol; Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002 for a motel in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) zoning district and sale of alcohol; including Variance (VAR) No. 18-030 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, VAR No. 18- 031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height, VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback, and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 zoning district at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway (Surfrider Plaza, LLC).
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
WORK PLAN: This item is not included in the Adopted Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024. Processing this application is part of normal staff operations.
City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item
4.B.
1
DISCUSSION: The matter concerns an appeal (Exhibit B) of CDP 09-067, CUP No. 18- 002, VAR Nos. 18-030, 18-031, 20-035, and SPR No. 18-025, approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2023, for a new 20-room motel with a subterranean garage, surface parking lot, and other associated development. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24 and the related Commission Agenda Report for the May 31, 2023 Planning Commission meeting are included herein as Exhibits C and D, respectively.
A summary of the appellant’s contentions are as follows:
1. Violates zoning
2. Violates coastal bluff provisions
3. Excessive grading and violates related requirements
4. Violates building height restrictions
5. Violates retaining wall height restrictions
6. Violates rear yard and bluff setbacks
7. Requires traffic study
8. Violates parking provisions
9. Lack of EIR and general CEQA compliance
10. Requires noise study
11. Pool use is not permitted
12. Low cost accommodations mitigation is not addressed
13. Sale of alcohol is not permitted
14. Conditions do not protect cultural resources
15. Violates wastewater disposal requirements
16. Project is not consistent with the General Plan
17. Findings are not supported for two variances and other discretionary requests
18. Proposed project is not accurately reflected in the conditions of approval
19. Lack of impartial hearing
20. Planning Commission decision is contrary to law
The full text of the appeal is included as Exhibit B.
Project Description
The project involves the redevelopment of the project site with a two-story motel, providing 7,693 square feet of (floor area ratio) (0.15 FAR), with 20 motel rooms and suites, and 47 compliant surface and subterranean parking spaces, which may also be stacked to provide additional parking spaces beyond those required. The ground floor of the building consists of the lobby and a valet parking garage. The main and upper floors accommodate the rooms and suites. A rooftop deck with swimming pool, spa and bar is proposed (Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan).
2
Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Project Plans
As proposed, the FAR, building setbacks, landscaping, open space, and number and dimensions of parking spaces conform to the development standards of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed parking in the front yard setback, retaining wall height and construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 are also designed to be compliant with the MMC and LCP development standards, and can be approved pursuant to the requested VARs, and SPR.
Table 4 – Proposed Development Plan Summary
Site Area 51,352 square feet
Floor Area (0.15 FAR) 7,702.8 square feet
Motel Total FAR 7,693 square feet
Roof Deck 3,139 square feet
Subterranean Parking Garage 9,881 square feet
Total Landscape and Open Space
Open Space Area 27,652 square feet
Landscaped Area 29,173 square feet
Total Onsite Parking 47 spaces
At Grade Surface Parking 18 spaces
Subterranean Parking 29 spaces
3
FAR: FAR establishes the total allowable square footage for commercial development pursuant to the commercial development standards contained in LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 3.8. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(5)(a), the gross square footage of all buildings on a given parcel shall be limited to a maximum FAR of
0.15, or 15 percent of the lot area (excluding any street rights of way). For the project site, that equates to:
• 0.15 FAR: The allowable FAR is 7,703 square feet. 7,693 square feet of FAR is proposed.
The development standards for commercial development regulate density based upon Lot Area and Floor Area, and the associated FAR calculation. • Lot Area is defined as — the total area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding any street rights of way.
• Floor Area is defined as — the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the interior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Floor area does not include interior parking spaces, loading space for motor vehicles, vehicular maneuvering areas, or any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet. (LIP Section 2.1) • FAR is defined as — the formula for determining permitted building area as a percentage of lot area; obtained by dividing the above-ground gross floor area of a building or buildings located on a lot or parcel of land by the total area of such lot or parcel of land. FAR does not include interior parking spaces, including its maneuvering and loading space, and below ground floor area. (LIP Section 2.1) Landscape and Open Space: The commercial development standards further regulate density by requiring that a certain percentage of lot area be devoted to landscaping and open space. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(5)(b) 40 percent of lot area shall be devoted to landscaping and an additional 25 percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space.
For this project site, that equates to:
• Landscaping at 40% of lot area – The required landscaping area is 20,541 square feet and 29,173 square feet is proposed.
• Open Space at 25% of lot area – The required open space area is 12,838 square feet, which may include courtyards, patios, natural open space and additional landscaping, but not parking lots, buildings, exterior hallways and stairways, and 27,652 square feet is proposed.
Access and Parking: LIP Section 3.14 provides specific parking requirements and parking development standards, including location, access, screening and layout. 4
Access – The development proposes to use the existing, unused driveway on PCH at the eastern edge of the project site for direct access to the project site. The existing driveways at the adjacent Aviator Nation Site, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the project site from the west. Since the project site will continue to provide shared parking to the Aviator Nation Site, internal access is provided, and the parking lots will remain connected so that shared parking operations do not require entering PCH.
Parking – The required number of parking spaces for the project, as per LIP Sections
3.14.2 and 3.14.3 is as follows: one parking space for each lodging unit (keyed room) is required, totaling 20 spaces; in addition to one space for the average, per-shift number of employees, totaling 4 spaces. A total of 24 spaces are required for the Project.
The project site would continue to be subject to a JUPA with the Aviator Nation Site, under which the project site is required to provide enough parking spaces to support land uses on both properties. The number of spaces allocated to the adjacent Aviator Nation Site is
24. The project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 5, Proposed Parking Program.
Table 5 – Proposed Parking Program
Required Parking Number of Spaces
Lodging (20 units) 20
Average, per-shift number of employees 4
JUPA- Aviator Nation 24
Total Onsite Parking Required 47 spaces
Proposed Parking Number of Spaces
Regular Parking 35 spaces
ADA Parking 3
Compact Parking 9
Total Onsite Parking Proposed 47 spaces
The onsite parking is located as follows:
• Subterranean Parking: 29 parking spaces are located in the proposed subterranean parking level, stacked parking space numbers in the subterranean parking have not been enumerated but would be additive to the minimum surface parking requirements of the LCP.
• Surface Parking: 18 spaces are provided in the at grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH, which is located in the front yard setback. LIP Section 3.14.5(A)(2) provides that required parking spaces may only be located in interior side and rear setbacks, and no parking space for a commercial use, required or otherwise, shall not be located in any required front or street-side setback area, unless regulations 5
provide otherwise. The project requires VAR No. 20-035 for these parking spaces to remain within the required front yard setback.
Height: The motel would reach a height of two stories or up to 24 feet above finished or natural grade, with an elevator shaft at 23 feet, 8 inches from finished grade at perimeter exterior walls (lowest grade). The remaining 34 percent of the project site closest to the top of the slope would be maintained as undeveloped open space. The commercial development standards regulate mass and visual impacts by regulating height and number of stories. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(1), building height shall not be higher than 18 feet above natural or finished grade, whichever results in a lower building height and that in no event shall the number of stories above grade be greater than two. LIP Section 13.27 provides that the Planning Commission may allow heights up to 24 feet for flat roofs.
• A 24-foot tall, two-story motel building with a rooftop deck and pool, and subterranean parking is proposed to be notched into the hillside. The motel would reach a height of two stories or up to 24 feet for a flat roof above the lowest grade. • Site development would be enabled by construction of a retaining wall at the north side of the motel structure to retain the graded slope and would extend up to 46 feet in height above the surface parking lot (with a total height of 52.5 feet above the bottom of the subterranean parking level), constructed to secure the slope following excavation. However, most of the retaining wall is subterranean with a maximum height of 21 feet, 10 inches exposed above grade. Up to 11 feet, 10 inches of the exposed retaining wall projects above the rooftop deck. From a lineof-sight, only a small portion of the wall will be visible above the proposed motel from PCH.
Setbacks: A setback is the distance by which a structure or an addition to a structure must be separated from a parcel line, natural feature, other structure, road, right-of-way, or easement. Building setbacks are intended to provide open areas around structures for visibility, access to and around structures for safety and convenience purposes, access to natural light, ventilation and direct sunlight, separation of incompatible land uses, space for privacy and landscaping, protection of natural resources, and defensible space against fire.
The project’s proposed setbacks are designed to be compliant with the City’s LCP development standards. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(2)(a)-(c), the required setbacks are as follows:
• Front yard: 20% of the total depth of the lot. The required setback is 47 feet, 5 inches. The proposed building setback is 61 feet and the surface parking is 5 feet. VAR No. 20-035 allows for the surface parking to be located within the required front yard setback.
6
• Side yard: Cumulatively at least 25% of the total width of the lot but, in no event, shall a single side yard setback be less than 10% of the width of the lot or 5 feet, whichever is greater. The proposed setbacks of 21 feet, 7 inches and 32 feet, 5 inches meet this requirement.
• Rear yard: Setbacks shall be at least fifteen percent of the lot depth or fifteen feet whichever is greater. The required setback is 35 feet, 7 inches. The proposed setback is 104 feet, 1 inch.
Grading and Retaining Wall: Project development requires grading and excavation of approximately 0.77 acre of the existing lower portion of the slope and existing parking lot to accommodate the two-story motel building (with a single level of subterranean parking and surface parking lot). A proposed retaining wall would be installed at the north side of the motel structure to retain the graded slope and the retaining portion of the wall would extend up to 50 feet in height above the surface parking lot with an additional two feet of freeboard (total 52.5 feet, figure 3 below is section that was not drawn through the highest point of the wall), constructed to secure the slope following excavation and to provide a 15-foot setback between the building and the slope. The slopes proposed for grading and construction of a retaining wall are steeper than a 3 to 1 slope (Figure 3 – Representative Cross Section). As shown in Figure 3, the parking garage is subterrain because a retaining wall and fill do not allow the parking garage to daylight more than three feet.
Figure 3 – Representative Cross Section
Source: Project Plans
7
Grading – The project requires a total of 12,648 cubic yards of grading, with excavation of approximately 11,921 cubic yards of soil. Approximately 61 cubic yards of the excavated soil would be used as fill material onsite, while the remaining material (approximately 11,860 cubic yards) would be exported from the project site via roughly 581 to 847 heavy haul trucks, depending on the size of trucks utilized. Of the 12,648 cubic yards of total grading, 11,921 is understructure grading, which is an LIP exempt category from the total allowable grading amount. LIP Section 8.3(B) allows for 1,000 cubic yards of non-exempt grading per acre of commercial development, allowing 1,180 cubic yards of non-exempt grading on the project site. The total amount of non-exempt grading is 727 cubic yards, which is less than the maximum allowed non-exempt grading amount.
Retaining Wall – The project requires the construction of a retaining wall at the northern edge of the proposed motel building. The retaining wall would rise to a height of 46 feet above the surface parking lot. However, as the retaining wall is behind the proposed twostory motel building, the motel building will obstruct most of the retaining wall from a lineof-sight perspective taken from PCH. LIP Section 8.3(C) limits the height of vertical cut to a maximum of 12 feet for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the structure. VAR No. 18-031 is requested for the proposed installation of a retaining wall taller than 12 feet.
VAR No. 18-030 is requested for the siting of structures on slopes steeper than a 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical).
Events: The rooftop deck and amenities would be used by motel guests on a daily basis.
Per the MMC, events that would bring in visitors can be held onsite in the motel subject to City approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP).1 Typical events include weddings, B’nai Mitzvahs, parties, corporate events, and other festivities. Pursuant to MMC Section
17.68.010, TUPs are limited to six events per calendar year.
Any noise caused by the operation of the project would be subject to the noise regulations contained in MMC Chapter 8.24, which prohibits unnecessary noises, sounds or vibrations which are physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity.
The project site is buffered from surrounding residential areas by open space and the incorporation of additional landscaping. The design of the proposed building would also serve as a barrier that reduces noise transmission due to the patios facing away from residential areas and the building naturally containing vehicle noise within the subterranean parking garage amongst other features. The project does not propose amplified sound (music, concerts, etc.).
Site Lighting: In accordance with LIP Sections 4.6.2 and 6.5(G) and MMC Chapter
17.41, the project would include installation of low intensity, shielded light fixtures, including a color temperature of proposed lighting less than 3,000 Kelvin. Sources of 1 Per the MMC, a special event is defined as a significant occurrence or happening which is arranged for a particular occasion or purpose.
8
lighting would include interior lighting, exterior wayfinding, and security lighting. Open public areas, such as parking lots, would be lit by both wall-mounted and free-standing path lights. Pathways immediately adjacent to buildings would generally be lit with free standing, downward facing LED light fixtures. Recessed, wall-mounted LED lighting would be used for step lighting and some narrower publicly accessible walkways and to enhance security. Certain areas (i.e., water features and the lobby entrance) would be accented with low wattage, shielded flood light fixtures.
OWTS: The project site is located in Phase 3 of the Civic Center Prohibition Area, which is subject to deadlines by which properties must cease discharging from individual septic systems and connect to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility (CCWTF) Project. The CCWTF Project was recently constructed approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site in Winter Canyon off of Civic Center Way. Phase 2 has been approved and will be under construction shortly, expanding the area being converted from OWTS to public sewer. Wastewater flows from the project site could eventually be accommodated by Phase 3 of CCWTF Project. Phase 3 is dependent upon certain thresholds being met after the construction of Phase 2.
New Luxury Overnight Accommodations: Pursuant to LIP Section 12.10, the City may approve new luxury overnight visitor accommodations if the project provides lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. Luxury overnight accommodations shall be defined as the point at which the cost of an overnight room exceeds 120 percent of the median cost of an overnight room for all overnight accommodations in the City of Malibu. The applicant has expressed that the exemption would apply, since the accommodations are not going to meet the definition of luxury overnight accommodations.
The lower cost overnight accommodations may be provided, either onsite, offsite, or through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City for deposit into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower cost overnight facilities in the Malibu-Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone area of Los Angeles County or Ventura County. A condition has been added for the property owner to pay the in-lieu fee in compliance with LIP Section 12.10.
ABC License: The applicant will later submit an application to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for a license to sell alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption. ABC will not issue the license until the proposed CUP is approved.
Therefore, a condition of approval has been included stating that the owner would be required to submit a copy of the ABC license to the Planning Department prior to alcohol sales. It is unknown at this time whether a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity will be required prior to the issuance of the ABC license. In case this letter is required, the resolution authorizes the Planning Director the ability to issue it.
APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
9
The appeal outlines the specific findings and the grounds for the appeal, each of which are summarized below in italics. Following each point from the appeal are staff’s responses in straight type. The full text of the appeal documents can be found in Exhibit B. The Planning Commission agenda report is included as Exhibit D. The Planning Commission agenda report includes a complete overview of the surrounding area, existing development, project conformance with the LCP and MMC, and a discussion of all required findings.
Appeal Item 1. Violates zoning
This project is in the CV-1 zone which lists motel uses as conditionally permitted. The proposed use does not meet the definition of a motel but that of a hotel which are not allowed in this zone. A hotel use would require a zone change and additional parking spaces.
Staff Response
Pursuant to the MMC and LIP, the definitions for “bed and breakfast inn”, “motel”, and “hotel” are provided in bullet points below. The proposed use includes transient lodging on a single, two-story building, swimming pool, kitchen to provide meals to guests only and rooftop bar. All of the rooms have separate entrances leading directly from the outside of the building to the parking lot. None of the definitions mention gyms, swimming pools, kitchen to prepare food for guests or bars. The proposed use does not include restaurants and meeting rooms that would be open to the general public. The definition for hotel states it provides “additional services”. If the Council determines that the proposed swimming pool, kitchen and bar qualify as additional services specified in the hotel definition, then the proposed use would qualify as a hotel. However, these amenities may also be construed as services that can be customary and incidental to all transient lodging accommodations, including motels.
• “Bed and breakfast inn” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public and providing kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests of the facility only and not otherwise open to the public. • “Motel” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public in a group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land, does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms, and not otherwise open to the public.
• “Hotel” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and providing additional services, such as restaurants and meeting rooms.
The parking provisions for hotels are much more demanding compared to motels. This is due to the presumption that hotels, which would have amenities open to the public such as restaurants and meeting rooms, would generate additional parking demand beyond 10
the parking generated by guests only. Supporting the determination that the project constitutes a motel, and not a hotel, is that a swimming pool, bar, and kitchen would not generate the demand for additional parking spaces when they serve only guests that already stay at the facility.
Appeal Item 2. Violates coastal bluff provisions
This project meets the definition of a coastal bluff. To build this project, it requires cutting into a coastal bluff which the LCP does not allow. The fact that PCH and structures are between the ocean and the project is immaterial. PCH was built along the sand and this coastal bluff was historically affected by wave action.
Staff Response
Applicable coastal bluff definitions are listed in the bullet points below. • 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. • Sea cliff - a cliff or slope produced by wave action, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave-cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion.
The definitions for cliff, coastal bluff and sea cliff are slightly different. A common thread in all definitions is that these slopes are steep and show characteristics that they were produced by wave action. There is a distinction between these slopes and canyon slopes (often referred to as canyon bluffs) and mountains that were formed through natural geological processes. The project geotechnical engineer, GeoConcepts Inc, provided a letter, dated January 11, 2024, examining the rear slope (Exhibit F). According to the letter, the slope is mantled with slope wash that is the result of terrestrial process and is 11
not associated with wave action. Slope wash deposits occur at the toe of most natural slopes and are the result of erosion and redeposition of bedrock materials and sediments.
The slope is not very steep to perpendicular, it is not a cliff or slope produced by wave action and does not have any high bank or bold headland.
Appeal Item 3. Excessive grading and violates related requirements The LCP does not permit development on a coastal bluff. According to a staff report, the net lot area is 1.18 acres. The project includes the excavation of 0.77 acre (over threefourths of an acre) of the coastal bluff. More than 65 percent of the 1.18 acres site will be destroyed by cutting into this coastal bluff.
Staff Response
About half of the project’s disturbed area is over a flat, existing surface parking lot to accommodate the proposed surface parking lot and about half of the building footprint.
The toe of the slope is proposed to be cut to permit the other half of the building and restorative grading around the proposed building is necessary to improve slope stability and surficial erosion. As stated in staff response to Appeal Item 2 above, the slope has not been considered a coastal bluff.
Variance No. 18-030 has been applied to the project for construction on steep slopes to accommodate a subterranean garage and structural setback to the proposed motel building. A proposed retaining wall would be installed north of the motel structure to secure the slope following excavation and to maintain a structural setback from the slope, which is also subject to a separate variance request related to height.
The total amount of proposed export is approximately 12,255 cubic yards of excavated soil. This is to accommodate the proposed building, including subterranean garage almost entirely below existing grade. Grading associated with accommodating a building is considered exempt understructure. The non-exempt grading around the proposed building does not exceed the allowable of 1,000 cubic yards per acre for commercial development. The export amount must be hauled to the nearest landfill. Should the Council decide to condition the project to utilize double trailer haul trucks, the total number of trips can be reduced by half. If double trailer haul trucks are used for the project, it would require approximately 600 to 875 heavy haul truck trips, assuming use of 14 to 20 cubic yard haul trucks. The project thus complies with the grading requirements of the LIP, and the appeal does not provide evidence that disputes this analysis.
Appeal Item 4. Violates building height restrictions
The maximum allowable height for a flat roof structure is 24 feet as measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is lower, and a building may not be more than two stories. In an attempt to meet the height requirement, the applicant boldly created a fiction by measuring height incorrectly from a higher elevation and staff buys into it. To 12
accomplish this, the applicant will place dirt behind the retaining wall at a higher elevation and then measure the structure from that point instead of finished grade.
If measured correctly, this would be a three-story building and the partially covered roof bar and elevator shaft is the fourth story per code. In another attempt to make this height fiction a reality, the applicant falsely states the enclosed parking garage is subterrain. It is not subterrain as claimed but clearly above ground level. To make the enclosed garage appear subterrain, the applicant places a berm around the above ground garage. Placing dirt around the above ground garage does not make it subterrain.
Staff Response
Relevant definitions are provided in bullet points below. As stated by the appellant, height is a measurement from both natural or finished grade, whichever results in a lower building height.
• height, non-beachfront lot - the vertical distance between the top of the structure and finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height. • grade (finished) - the finished ground level around the perimeter at all exterior walls of a building.
• grade (ground level) - the natural or finished ground level at all walls of a building, whichever results in a lower building height. In cases where walls are parallel to and within five feet of sidewalks, the above ground level shall be measured at the sidewalks.
Height from Natural Grade – Although natural grade is not defined in the MMC or LIP, it is commonly known in practice as the existing topography of a property before any land disturbance from a project. A topographic survey depicting the existing contour lines is required to establish natural grade. A height cloud, architectural elevations, crosssections and/or a roof plan with superimposed contour lines may individually or collectively be used to determine compliance with the maximum building height limit from natural grade. These exhibits may be used to attain building height as measured from natural grade by subtracting the top of roof elevation from the natural grade elevation based on the surrounding contour lines. In no case shall any portion of a building/structure extend above the maximum height limit as measured from natural grade.
Height from Finished Grade – The difficulty in measuring height from finished grade is that the finished grade is defined as the “ground level around the perimeter at all exterior walls of a building”. The height of buildings on elevations plans is only evident around the perimeter of the building walls, and yet the highest point of a building may be a roof peak (or an elevator shaft as is the case for the proposed motel) in the middle of the structure.
The finished grade at perimeter of exterior walls can be used to project a plane across interior portions of a building, for use together with architectural elevations, the grading plan and cross-sections. This method helps staff determine whether a building meets the height limit in cases where an architectural elevation shows a portion of a building set 13
back beyond a perimeter wall extending over the height limit. The architectural plans include elevations (Sheets A-2.4 and A-2.5) and cross-sections (Sheets A-3.2, and A-8.1 through A-8.6) that show no portion of the proposed building exceeds 24 feet in height as measured from finished grade, including elevator shaft, rooftop bar and rooftop railing.
The appellant suggests that the height of the building should be measured from an existing grade several feet from the exterior southern elevation of the building. The height definitions do not support measuring the height for the entire building from a single point or façade—or from a location not directly adjacent to the structure. The applicant provided exhibits (Exhibit G) to show the natural and finished grade lines around the building’s perimeter walls and across the building through cross-sections. At no point does the proposed building project above the 24-foot height limit as measured from natural or finished grade, including elevator shaft, rooftop bar and rooftop railing.
The code does not prohibit rooftop decks. While rooftop decks have been controversial in some residential communities, many houses and commercial projects have been approved with rooftop decks, including the Sea View Hotel and Surfrider Malibu Motel. As described above, all portions of the structure (including the rooftop deck and canopy) are below the 24-foot height limit.
The definitions relevant to basements are below.
• basement – that portion of a building or an area enclosed by walls located below finished grade and beneath or partially beneath the first floor footprint above, where the vertical distance from finished grade to the bottom of the finished floor above is no more than 3 vertical feet at all points around the perimeter of all exterior walls.
A basement does not constitute a story.
• ground floor – the first floor of a building other than a cellar or basement. • story - that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the roof above. A basement shall not be considered a story if the finished first floor does not exceed 3 feet above the average natural grade of the parcel. An unfinished attic shall not be considered a story. A mezzanine shall be considered a story if it is not open to the floor below, if it contains any enclosed rooms, bathrooms, closets, and the like, or if it contains more than 33-1/3% of the total floor area of the room(s) onto which it opens.
The definition for basement states that a basement is not considered a story so long as it does not “daylight more than three vertical feet at all points around the perimeter of all exterior walls” from finished grade to the bottom of the finished floor above. The finished grade is the ground when the project is constructed. The project plans show a biofiltration system attached to the southern exterior wall of the motel. The finished grade at the biofiltration system is currently greater than three vertical feet to the bottom of the finished floor above. The Planning Commission added Condition No. 41 required a revision to the 14
plans prior to plan check demonstrating that the biofiltration system elevation was raised to comply with the daylighting requirement for a basement. The code does not prohibit the use of manufactured slopes (berming) or a biofiltration system to raise the ground next to a basement in order for the basement to comply with the three vertical feet to the bottom of the floor above.
The lobby is not considered a basement. The floor slab for lobby and the slab of the subterranean garage are on the same plane; however, there are two walls backfilled with dirt that separate the lobby from the subterranean garage thereby maintaining the subterranean garage from daylighting consist with the definition of a basement per the City’s ordinances (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Lobby
Source: Project Plans
Appeal Item 5. Violates retaining wall height restrictions According to the staff report, the proposed retaining wall is required to hold the graded slope. It would extend up to 46 feet in height above the surface parking lot and 52.5 feet above the finished floor elevation of the subterranean parking level. A 52.5-foot retaining 15
wall, when the maximum allowed is 6 or 12 feet in height, is unallowable and does not meet the intention and general purposes of the LCP. Staff in recommending approval saying by granting a variance for this 52.5-foot high retaining will make it conform to the code but this is not accurate. This variance is clearly contrary and in conflict with the intention and general purposes of the LCP so this necessary finding cannot be made.
Another one of the findings that has to be made is the retaining wall variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant. Approving this variance will be granting a special privilege since there are no other retaining walls this high in the City. If the Council grants this variance, it is opening the door to exceedingly high retaining walls in the east end of Malibu. There are commercial retaining walls in the vicinity that exceed 12 feet but none as tall as the proposed wall.
Staff Response
The proposed development requires the construction of a retaining wall at the rear (north side) of the motel building. The retaining wall would be constructed to secure the graded slope following the excavation and to provide a 15-foot structural setback from the slope.
The project structural engineer provided a statement and exhibit showing the required horizontal 15-foot structural setback from the slope (Exhibit G). The retaining wall is 21 feet, 10 inches in height above finished grade. The retaining wall would extend below finished grade to accommodate the subterranean parking level and provide for an adequate foundation.
The applicant provided other examples of similar retaining walls within the same commercial corridor (Exhibit H). The PC Greens shopping center was constructed with a 15-foot tall retaining wall surfacing above the rooftop parking lot. The original office buildings which will be repurposed for the Sea View Hotel were constructed with a 21- foot-tall retaining wall daylighting above the lower level. The Malibu Vista at Carbon Beach is another office building constructed with a 26-foot-tall retaining wall. All of these buildings are located on the landside of PCH and were built into the hillside similar to the proposed motel. Most of these walls may not extend underground or, at least, not as far below grade compared to the proposed retaining wall. However, as mentioned above, other buildings along PCH have retaining walls that have similar visual characteristics in that there are portions which daylight above the structure in excess of the code allowance.
The portion of the proposed retaining wall below grade is to accommodate a subterranean garage in order to meet parking provisions.
Up to 11 feet, 10 inches of the proposed retaining wall projects above the rooftop deck.
From a line-of-sight, only a small portion of the wall will be visible above the proposed motel from PCH. The use of earth-tones, faux-rock, and landscaping would be implemented to soften the wall’s appearance. This is also similar to the other nearby development with similar retaining walls. Most of the retaining wall behind the PC Greens shopping center is entirely obstructed by the building even though the retaining wall projects 15 feet in height above the building rooftop.
16
The wall will be visually obstructed by the motel building and elevator shaft, and an approximately 180-foot wide terrace that would obstruct approximately half of the retaining wall. The wall will also be screened from view by proposed landscaping and roof deck elements. Giant Bird of Paradise, which is a plant that can reach a height of 20 feet and the clumps of long stalks can spread as far as 11 feet, are proposed to be planted in front of the retaining wall with the intent of visually screening the portions of the retaining wall above the roofline of the motel building. The retaining wall is also proposed to be cladded with earth-tone, faux-rock to mimic and blend with the natural hillside where visible through the proposed vegetation.
Findings related to the variance for retaining wall height are described in more detail in Appeal Item 17 below. Variances should rarely be granted. To grant a variance, all findings must be made. If any of the findings cannot be made, the variance should not be granted and the project should be denied.
The code does not provide guidance on how the height of retaining walls should be measured, except that it includes the required freeboard2. LCP Section 3.3.3(A)(7) provides clarity on how height is measured for fences and walls as follows:
• Measurement of Fences and Wall Height: The height of a fence or wall shall be measured at the highest ground level within three feet of either side of said wall or fence. In order to allow for variation in topography, the height of a required fence or wall may vary an amount not to exceed six inches; provided, however, that in no event shall the height of such fence or wall exceed the maximum height specified.
Height of wall is measured from the highest ground level. Grade at ground level is defined above as the natural or finished ground level at all walls of a building. In past practices, the City has not considered the exterior wall of a basement or building as a retaining wall.
The proposed retaining wall along the northern façade of the building is both an exterior wall for the subterranean garage and a retaining wall. The retaining wall is 21 feet, 10 inches in height above lowest ground level immediately adjacent to the wall. The retaining wall would extend below finished grade to accommodate the subterranean parking level and provide for an adequate foundation. The portion of the wall that functions as an exterior wall to the subterranean garage does not contribute to the overall visual aspect of the wall from PCH, or other scenic areas. LIP Section 8.3(C) permits for single cuts up to 12 feet in height which are an integral part of the structure. A variance is requested for the height of retaining wall over 12 feet, up to 21 feet, 10 inches, including two feet of freeboard.
The appellant stated that an architect formerly involved in the design of a shopping center on the subject property provided two conceptual perspective drawings demonstrating the site can be developed without a variance for retaining wall height. These conceptual 2 Freeboard is the additional height in retaining walls above the highest adjacent grade typically used to drainage above the wall and for debris protection.
17
drawings were not reviewed by all applicable City department and County agencies and therefore, City staff cannot confirm whether they are viable options. These drawings also do not show dimensions or project details. Both drawings show retaining walls immediately behind the building over the toe of the slope. The two main differences between the retaining walls in the conceptual drawings versus the proposed retaining wall are that the proposed project includes: 1) a subterranean garage and a 28-foot fire lane, which pushes development lower and further into the toe of the slope; and 2) provides a 15-foot setback between the structure of the motel and the slope. The conceptual drawings show retaining walls up to the height of the second-story buildings.
Appeal Item 6. Violates rear yard and bluff setbacks
The required rear yard setback for commercial development is at least 15 percent of the lot depth or 15 feet, whichever is greater. All structures are also required to be set back at least 25 feet from a 45-degree angle slope (1 to 1) starting at the toe of an inland-bluff or coastal bluff.
Staff Response
The project is consistent with the rear yard setback. The proposed building is 104 feet, 1 inch from the rear property line and 35 feet, 7 inches is the required rear yard setback.
The 45-degree slopes (1 to 1) on the property are narrow strips along the east and west extremities of the subject parcel. The proposed development is sited outside of 1 to 1 slopes and there are no 1 to 1 slopes immediately north or south of the proposed building.
Even though the 1 to 1 slope setback does not apply as the project does not propose any development above these slopes, the proposed development is at least 25 feet from the top of 1 to 1 slopes.
Appeal Item 7. Requires a traffic study
There is no actual traffic analysis in the Negative Declaration (ND). In this part of Malibu, there is traffic gridlock and severe traffic backup on a regular and continuing basis during rush hour and on weekends and in the summer. It is significant and not mitigable. This project will create additional vehicle trips which should not be allowed making the traffic situation incrementally worse. The City’s traffic studies do not reflect reality. The fire at Soho House last year caused terrible traffic backup during evacuation and emergency vehicles could not even enter their driveway. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires a right-turn only when exiting the project, if ignored, it will cause even worse delays and risk to patrons of the facility.
Staff Response
The potential traffic impact is addressed in the IS/MND in more detail and in the Response to Comments section. The project site currently holds a parking lot, which supports a limited number of trips to the site under existing conditions. It is disclosed that the project 18
would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to this existing setting. Under CEQA, due to the project’s location on the State Highway System, VMT is used for impact analysis purposes, overseen by Caltrans. As a project with a motel use, it is anticipated to generate approximately 68 average daily trips (ADT), which is well below the threshold of 110 trips per day set by Caltrans that would signify a significant impact. As the increase in trips is not considered significant under CEQA, the overall traffic conditions would not be significantly impacted from implementation of the project or on a cumulatively considerable basis.
Appeal Item 8. Violates parking provisions
Development standards in LIP Section 3.14.5 shall apply to all parking areas. Required parking facilities shall be on the same lot as the structure they are intended to serve, except that with proper legal agreement, the Planning Commission may approve parking on a separate lot. In no event shall require parking be farther than 300 feet from the use it is required to serve. The applicant cannot comply with this code provision.
The parking does not consider when the Malibu Inn/Aviator Nation parking was approved, Aviator Nation had use of an empty parking for overflow parking at night. If built, the project’s parking will be only for the use of 20 registered guests and 3 employees. Aviator Nation is allowed to have over 300 guests plus staff for concerts and it too is grossly under parked. The proposed project has no provision for TUP events parking and there is no location in the immediate area within 300 feet where that parking can be provided. It must be noted that street parking on PCH for employees is not allowed and takes away much needed public parking. Parking lifts have never been allowed in Malibu commercial buildings. But are allowed for this project. Therefore, this constitutes a “special privilege” There is an undercount of employees for events and normal staffing. This is the most congested area of the entire length of Pacific Coast Hwy in Malibu. Needed public parking spaces on PCH will be eliminated by this project’s overflow parking. This denies the general public parking needed to access to the beach, pier and nearby parks. This loss of parking is not acknowledged or analyzed in the ND and must be analyzed in an EIR.
Staff Response
On October 24, 2022, the City Council approved a CUP amendment for the Malibu Inn that would reduce the restaurant service area, to increase the space of an existing retail tenant space (Aviator Nation) and decrease the number of required off-site parking spaces in the JUPA to reflect the new number of required offsite parking spaces for the existing restaurant (Aviator Nation Dreamland). The CUP amendment reduced the total number of required offsite parking spaces from 31 to 23. The currently required 23 offsite parking spaces are provided at the Malibu Inn Motel site in conjunction with the required parking spaces for the proposed motel use. At the Council hearing for the CUP amendment, the overflow parking for the two large events per month permitted for Malibu Inn was discussed. The CUP amendment was approved with the relevant condition of approval, as follows:
19
13. All events authorized by Condition No. 19 of Resolution 10-59 must be approved by the Planning Director in advance as described in the following sentence and any condition approved by the Planning Director which may be added to mitigate impacts of the event must be complied with: A six-month event schedule shall be submitted for approval every six months and any changes to such approval must be approved at least a month in advance before the event.
The subject application is separate and apart from the Malibu Inn CUP amendment.
For motels, the code requires one parking space for each keyed room and one parking space for the average, per-shift number of employees. Unfortunately, the code does not define “average, per-shift number of employees”. This could mean the average as calculated for every shift, per day or weekly. The applicant provided the following per shift breakdown:
• Night Manager Shift – 10 p.m. – 4 a.m. (1 person for 6 hours). 1 Manager • Morning Manager Shift – 4 a.m. – 10 a.m. (1 person for 6 hours). 1 Manager • Early Day Shift 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. (6 people for 6 hours). 2 maids, 1 chef, 1 server, 1 bartender and 1 manager
• Afternoon Shift – 4 p.m. – 10 p.m. (4 people for 6 hours). 1 manager, 1 chef, 1 server and 1 bartender
Based on this calculation, the average employee per shift is three (12 divided by 4). The project provides four parking spaces for employees in addition to 20 parking spaces for each keyed room. A condition of approval is included in the resolution for the project that no more than eight employees can be at the site at any one shift based on four parking spaces for employees. The Planning Commission added a condition to permit vehicle lifts if backup power is provided and these spaces are not counted as required parking. The lift parking spaces would replace the eight parking spaces that are currently available to the public.
The Planning Commission added a condition to the project that requires the property owner to secure offsite parking for special events that may require more parking spaces than are provided onsite. The site provides the required parking spaces for a motel use.
The vehicle lifts are extra parking spaces that can be used for special events or general public parking and are not counted as required parking spaces. They also will be able to be accessed even if there is a power failure.
Appeal Item 9. Lack of EIR and CEQA compliance
An impartial EIR is needed and required under CEQA for this project. The ND is not sufficient. The required cumulative impact study was not done and the ND failed to take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct impacts. If there are one or more “Potentially 20
Significant Impact an EIR is required. The ND failed to indicate any potentially significant impacts that are not mitigable such as cutting into a coastal bluff and parking. The fact that this project is a significant departure from the code requirements makes an EIR necessary. In the EIR more environmentally protective alternatives must be analyzed.
Staff Response
IS/MND No. 20-003 reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that the IS/MND was completed in compliance with CEQA and is adequate for this project. The Commission further found that the project is expected to have less than significant impacts on the environment, with implementation of mitigation measures. They found no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.
The project was not processed with an ND (Negative Declaration) but instead was processed with an MND (Mitigated Negative Declaration). An ND finds that a project will have a less than significant impact on the environment without any mitigation measures.
Meanwhile, an MND finds that a project with mitigation measures will have a less than significant impacts on the environment. The inclusion of variances does not signify that an EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. The project, with the variances, does comply with the City’s zoning code and LIP. An EIR must be prepared whenever there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, and the appellant has not presented evidence that this is the case.
Appeal Item 10. Requires a noise study
No sound study was performed for the Rabbi house, religious school and synagogue which are approximately 30 feet east of the project. The noise from the rooftop pool deck and bar would most likely significantly impact the school, synagogue, and Rabbi’s residence. This study is needed and mitigation is required.
Staff Response
The IS-MND includes a detailed noise analysis that revealed no potential for significant impacts whereas the appellant has provided only unsupported speculation. Please refer to Section 3.13, Noise, which identifies potential for noise during construction and operation of the project and provides two mitigation measures to reduce noise related effects. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 which reduces construction noise through construction machinery and truck noise reduction accessories, staging area location, temporary sound barriers, and public noticing. Additionally, the project would be required to designate a noise control coordinator. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 prohibits amplified sound from the project. If amplified sound is later proposed outdoors, the applicant must prepare a noise study and must submit an amendment to the proposed conditional use permit. 21
Appeal Item 11. Pool use is not permitted
Swimming pools in both CV-1 and CV-2 must be open to the public. They both have a specific footnote #9 that states in the LIP Appendix 1 “pool uses permitted only if available to the general public”.
Staff Response
The code is not clear on whether pools can be permitted on commercially zoned properties. The issue has been deliberated in past Planning Commission hearings on the proposed and other projects and swimming pools have been approved by the Planning Commission for both the proposed project and Sea View Hotel, and it made a recommendation to the Council to approve the Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn, which also includes a swimming pool. While the Sea View Hotel included an Overlay District that granted more flexibility on the types of uses it can authorize, swimming pools were not addressed in the permitted table for Sea View Hotel and therefore, the same land use provisions would apply to the Sea View Hotel as any other commercial zoned property.
The MMC does not specify whether pools are permitted, conditionally permitted or accessory to any primary use other than for residences. The LIP contains similar language but identifies pools for recreational facilities as a conditionally permitted use.
Both the MMC and LIP permit health clubs and conditionally permit motels, which are known to include swimming pools. In this case pool use is not the primary use of the site, and is incidental to the motel use. Interpreting this type of pool as incidental to the motel use, and not subject to footnote #9, is consistent with prior determinations of the Planning Commission as described above. Staff raised this issue with the Planning Commission and it ultimately agreed to approve the proposed pool consistent with these other projects and its past interpretation.
Appeal Item 12. Low cost accommodations mitigation is not addressed The applicant at the Planning Commission hearing stated that the City would receive up to $1,000,000 in TOT taxes a year. To achieve that amount the motel would have to have room rates exceeding $1,000 a night with 100 percent occupancy. Luxury rates require that low cost accommodations be provided. To meet the Coastal Act, an in-lieu fee is not sufficient. Adjustments for low income accommodations must be made according to the California Coastal Commission comments. None of their comments is in the conditions of approval
Staff Response
The applicant agreed to pay the in-lieu fee for low cost overnight accommodations.
Pursuant to LIP Section 12.10, the lower cost overnight accommodations may be provided either onsite, offsite, or through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City for deposit into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower cost overnight facilities in the Malibu22
Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone area of Los Angeles County or Ventura County.
The in-lieu fee amount is established in the LIP and must be increased to account for inflation. A condition has been added for the property owner to pay the in-lieu fee in compliance with LIP Section 12.10.
Appeal Item 13. Sale of alcohol is not permitted
Motels do not sell alcoholic beverages; therefore, their sale should not be allowed and this CUP denied.
The City should follow the ABC Control Act Section 23789 Rule 61.4 prohibiting sale of alcohol near schools or churches. This project site is adjacent to a synagogue and an early childhood education center. Therefore, a denial of the CUP is warranted.
The staff report says, when the CUP is approved, a condition of approval has been included stating: “If a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity is required prior to the issuance of the ABC license. The resolution authorizes the Planning Director with the ability to issue it.” This is obligating the City to aid this project in obtaining a license to sale alcohol. The City should not be obligated to do this ever and especially since religious school and synagogue within 30 feet of the project.
Staff Response
The MMC and LCP do not restrict motels from selling alcoholic beverages. However, the Council may decide that the sale of alcohol and other proposed amenities may result in the proposed use meeting the definition of a hotel. A more detailed discussion about the use is provided above under staff response to appeal basis 1. The Council also may deny the request if it cannot make the required CUP findings for the service of alcohol.
Business and Professions Code, Division 9, Section 23789 states as follows:
(a) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals.
(b) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls. This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the department.
The subject parcel is located immediately adjacent to Chabad of Malibu, a religious learning center and synagogue, and Gan Malibu Preschool. Such proximity on its own is not sufficient to warrant the denial of an ABC license. ABC may refuse issuance of a license based on the above code requirement. The Council may also deny the sale of 23
alcohol as it is subject to a conditional use permit, if it finds that the sale of alcohol is not compatible with any of the surrounding uses.
According to the ABC provisions, some applications require that a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) is established. Based on an ABC determination, if the premise is located in a high crime area based on local crime statistics and/or if the number of similar license types exceeds the limit set forth by State law (over-concentration) then a PCN is required. After the review of the application, ABC would notify the applicant if a PCN is required based on these criteria. The subject application includes a conditional use permit for the consideration of the motel and sales of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption.
Appeal Item 14. Conditions do not protect cultural resources A condition of approval is included in the resolution which states in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until the Planning Director can review this information. This wording of the condition fails to require work ceasing if a cultural resource is found during grading’ excavation or any site disturbance.
It is likely that significant cultural resources or a Chumash burial could be found on this site. All along this area, east of Malibu Creek, at various times Chumash artifacts and burials have been found. Therefore, a phase one study needs to be done and a qualified Chumash monitor and archeologist must be on site during any soil disturbance. Please add this as a condition if you are going to approve this project.
Staff Response
The project site has been previously disturbed during construction of PCH and the existing parking lot and past grading and topsoil erosion on the hillside. The flat portion of the property location in an area that was likely subject to coastal processes and past disturbance from development limits the potential for encountering subsurface cultural resources. No archaeological resources are known to exist on the project site or immediate vicinity. In addition, the steep slope is unlikely to support cultural remains both due to its steepness and past disturbance for slope stabilization. In any event, local tribal representatives expressed concern during consultation that the project site is considered to be potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures TCR-1, -2, and -3 were added to the IS/MND to further prevent impacts that could occur from unanticipated encounters with tribal cultural resources, beyond those assured by the City’s existing conditions of approval.
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discoveries. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 75-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall assess the find. The Lead 24
Agency or Project manager shall contact the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians to consult if any such find occurs within areas culturally and traditionally affiliated with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians.
TCR-2 Soil Inspection. During soil excavation activities beneath the proposed septic system extent, a Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation representative shall be allowed to inspect these soils for evidence of tribal cultural resources. Should anything be uncovered during this soil inspection, soil disturbing activities shall be halted until the soil and potential artifacts are properly evaluated, recorded, and processed pursuant to City Standard Conditions of Approval and State requirements.
TCR-3 Tribal Consultation. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall consult with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resource encountered during any ground disturbing or grading activities.
If concerns remain over potential cultural resources impacts, the Council may add a condition that requires archaeological and Chumash representative monitoring during grading.
Appeal Item 15. Violates wastewater disposal requirements The project does not comply with wastewater ban in this area. OWTSs are not allowed there and the project should not be allowed to proceed until it hooks up to the civic center treatment plant. The environmental department states that a 10,000-gallon holding tank will handle the overflow usage above 1,760 gallons per day meeting the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Board. This assumption is incorrect in that the environmental engineer revealed before the Planning Commission that he calculated the water usage based on 100 percent occupancy for weekends in the summer and 20 percent on weekdays. This of course is not realistic. There simply will be no place for the wastewater overflow to be safely disposed of.
Staff Response
At the January 11, 2022 Special Planning Commission hearing, the Commission continued the item to permit staff time to verify with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) whether the proposed project is in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Regional Water Board. Staff met with Dr. Jim Kang, Groundwater Permitting Unit Supervisor of the Regional Water Board, to discuss the project on several occasions, including at the site.
Dr. Kang concluded that the proposed project remains on the prohibition exemption list 25
despite the project changes since it was initially enlisted. However, he pointed out two major deficiencies in the project’s OWTS design, which include average wastewater flow and future expansion dispersal area.
In a 2011 submittal to the Regional Water Board, the project estimated an average wastewater flow of 1,700 gallons per day (gpd). At the time of Dr. Kang’s more recent review of the project, the average flow was 2,704 gpd. According to Dr. Kang, the average flow was not allowed to increase over the estimates provided in 2011. Additionally, the project’s OWTS was designed without a future dispersal area expansion. Dr. Kang suggested that the dispersal area shall be designed with a 100 percent future expansion area. Dr. Kang concurred that it was the City’s responsibility to administer the OWTS design standards for OWTSs in the prohibition area as established in the City’s agreement with the Regional Water Board.
The OWTS design report and OWTS plans for 22959 Pacific Coast Highway had several revisions between March 2022 and January 2023 to meet the Regional Water Board recommendations with the advanced OWTS. This includes a 10,000-gallon equalization tank to collect daily flow and meter it at a maximum of 1,700 gpd, a future dispersal field, and an advance OWTS that is designed and operated to meet the most stringent effluent limits established for the site by the Ocean Plan, Basin Plan, and the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order R4-2019-0024. The Regional Water Board recommended limits from the General WDR Order R4-2019-0024 for advance OWTS, which requires discharges from a secondary treatment system to meet bacteria standards for total coliform limitations of 23 MPN/100 mL (millilitres)3 weekly and 240 MPN/100 mL monthly.
Aside from the Regional Water Board’s recommendations, Tetra Tech, a third-party consulting firm that helps the City Environmental Health Division with complex project reviews, recommended effluent limits for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and weekly/monthly effluent limits for total coliform. The final revision of the OWTS design report meets all recommendations from the City Environmental Health Division, Regional Water Board and Tetra Tech. On January 20, 2023, the Conformance Review for the project was deemed complete.
The project OWTS designer prepared a Flow Summary report, dated March 17, 2022.
The Flow Summary report provides two occupancy estimates. The first estimate shows an occupancy of 40 percent for Sunday, 25 percent for Monday through Wednesday, 60 percent for Thursday and 100 percent for Friday and Sunday. The second estimate shows an occupancy of 50 percent for Sunday, 50 percent from Monday through Wednesday, 80 percent for Thursday and 100 percent for Friday and Saturday. The equalization tank was sized based on these estimates. The equalization tank was added to the project after the Reginal Water Board confirmed that the project was subject to a maximum wastewater flow of 1,700 gpd in order for the project to remain in the prohibition exemption list as this 3 Formula to evaluate fecal coliform bacteria count in wastewater. 26
was the estimate provided at the time the original shopping center application was submitted. Should it be estimated that the motel occupancy is higher than the applicant estimates, the project would need to be substantially modified to reduce the wastewater flow to 1,700 gpm. The estimated daily wastewater flow for a 100 percent occupancy is 2,890 gpm. This would mean a close to 50 percent reduction to the project’s wastewater flow. Another option may be to condition the project to the applicant’s estimated occupancies until such time Phase 3 of the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility is made available to the site.
Appeal Item 16. Project is not consistent with the General Plan The proposed project clearly violates the following policy of the Malibu General Plan Land Use Element:
a. Section I.1in the Introduction to the Land Use Element states: “Commercial areas are limited to small neighborhood serving and visitor serving uses interspersed throughout the City….” By contrast, the proposed project at unallowable four stories would create the fourth hotel/motel within approximately 500 feet of the Malibu Pier, b. Section 1.5.4 of the Land Use Element states that the CV designation for this site provides for uses “that serve visitors and residents, such as hotels and restaurants “which respect the rural character and natural environmental setting.” The imposing, four-story structure proposed would be urban in character.
Staff Response
The entire second paragraph of General Plan Section I.1 states as follows:
The Malibu area was settled in the 1890s by the Rindge Family who owned the Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit, a large ranch. Its remote location between the ocean and the mountains led to the current small-town residential community development pattern. Malibu has remained a primarily residential community.
Commercial areas are limited to small neighborhood serving and visitor serving uses interspersed throughout the City, but located primarily in the Civic Center area and the Point Dume area.
This is one of three paragraphs that provide a description of the City at the time the General Plan was prepared (circa 1994). This is not a General Plan policy.
General Plan Section 1.5.4 states as follows:
The CV designation provides for visitor serving uses which serve visitors and residents such as hotels and restaurants which respect the rural character and natural environmental setting. Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) shall range from a maximum of 0.15 to 0.25. CV designations are divided into two levels of density. 27
Hotels are only permitted in CV-2 designations, the highest density designation.
Visitor serving uses such as motels and hotels shall be consistent with compatible accessory uses, shall protect the surrounding properties, shall ensure safe traffic circulation and shall promote economically viable visitor serving areas of the City.
This is a description of the CV land use designation in the General Plan. This is also not a policy. However, General Plan Lan Use (LU) Goal 4 states, “Commercial uses and structures in harmony with the rural residential character and natural environment of the community”. To implement Goal 4, the General Plan includes the policies as follows:
LU OBJECTIVE 4.1: COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OF A LIMITED HEIGHT AND BULK EQUIVALENT TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENCES.
• LU Policy 4.1.1: The City shall encourage park-like settings by requiring that structures be oriented toward open plaza areas rather than streets and parking areas and incorporating additional amenities such as benches and play areas for children.
• LU Policy 4.1.3: The City shall prohibit strip center commercial development. • LU Policy 4.1.6: The City shall promote extensive landscaping in new projects while emphasizing low volume irrigation and the use of native, fire-resistant and drought-tolerant plant materials.
• LU Policy 4.1.7: The City shall require visually aesthetic screening of service areas and well landscaped parking lots.
The General Plan further states that to implement these policies the City shall:
• LU Implementation Measure 68: Require that adjacent commercial centers provide reciprocal pedestrian access to reduce vehicle trips and integrate adjacent centers. • LU Implementation Measure 69: Require non-automobile circulation within commercial developments.
• LU Implementation Measure 74: Require landscape plans designed by Statelicensed landscape architects in connection with all new or remodel commercial developments.
These policies are also implemented through the City’s zoning code and LIP, which are compliant with the General Plan, and the project complies with the zoning code and LIP requirements. The proposed motel includes a rooftop swimming pool and deck with tables and benches. The project is not a strip center commercial development and it includes
56.8 percent of natural open space and landscaping, and 53.8 percent of open space.
The front yard fencing will be mostly visually screened with vegetation from PCH. A motel near the Malibu Pier, Malibu Lagoon, restaurants and other visitor-serving commercial facilities, is expected to reduce vehicle trips and encourage pedestrian circulation. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and implementation measures set forth to ensure consistency with General Plan LU Goal 4 for commercial uses and structures to 28
be in harmony with rural residential character and natural environment of the community.
The subject property is located in a commercial area where the General Plan envisions motels and other similar uses.
Appeal Item 17. Findings are not supported for two variances and other discretionary requests
In good faith the necessary findings cannot be made to justify this project. Therefore, the project must be denied.
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, nor does it have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impacts of this project are significant for many reasons, including, the traffic impact at this location, parking, project height and retaining wall height, cutting into a coastal bluff are all significant negative impacts.
2. For a Coastal Development Permit, the following finding cannot be made: This is the least damaging environmentally damage alternative. The applicant’s previous application for a retail/office center is less damaging.
3. These required findings for a Variance cannot be made. a. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located. This variance is detrimental to the public interest and possibly safety. And is detrimental to the property in that it destroys 0.77 acre of a coastal bluff face. It may also be a safety hazard to the residence above this slope.
b. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner not shared by any other project in the vicinity.
Approving this variance will be granting a special privilege to the owner since there are no other commercial retaining wall this high in the City. By granting a variance permitting such a high retaining wall of 52.5 feet, the Council would be granting a special privilege to the applicant not shared by any other project in the vicinity.
c. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP. This variance is clearly in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and defeats the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.
Staff Response
The Planning Commission made findings to approve the project which are provided in the Commission Agenda Report, dated May 18, 2023 (Exhibit D). In summary, the appellant claims that most of the findings for the CDP and two variances cannot be made because 29
of traffic, parking, coastal bluff and all other reasons previous enumerated in the appeal bases. A staff response has been provided herein above for each of the enumerated appeal bases.
The previous project design for a shopping center was abandoned due to comments received during the IS/MND public review period related to the height of the retaining wall proposed for that project. The commercial shopping center required additional parking spaces and had a higher traffic count compared to the proposed motel. The proposed project requires less parking spaces which allowed the height of the retaining wall to decrease several feet compared to the previous shopping center design. The shopping center alternative was not found to be an environmental superior option.
A large surface of the site’s slope contains loose soil deposits from years of erosion. The project will maintain 56.8 percent of the site as natural open space / landscaping and 53.8 percent of the site as open space. Much of the disturbed area will be restored and landscaped. The proposed grading and retaining wall would minimize surficial topsoil erosion and would otherwise be safer to surrounding properties compared to existing conditions.
Appeal Item 18. Proposed project is not accurately reflected in the conditions of approval
Staff Response
The appellant objects to many of the condition of approval mainly because of fundamental differences in how the appellant feels the code should be applied to the project. For example, the appellant disagrees with referring to the proposed use as a motel and disagrees with conditions related to the sale of alcohol because the appellant believes the applicant is not eligible for a liquor license, etc. These fundamental differences are outlined throughout the appeal bases. A staff response has been provided herein above for each of the enumerated appeal bases.
Appeal Item 19. Lack of impartial hearing
There was a lack of fair or impartial hearing. The Planning Department has been skewed to the developer since day one. It accepted an application one day before the water ban went into effect back, on November 5, 2009, and the application was not even deemed complete. Studies and OWTS reports needed to be submitted in order to be put on Table 4-ZZ but somehow this project placed on the list without these documents. Almost two years later, on September 27, 2011, the applicant’s engineer finally submitted plans to develop a commercial retail/office facility with a total of 56 fixture units and 1,700 gpd discharge to the Regional Quality Water Board. Then, almost 10 years later, on June 11, 2018, they changed the project completely without starting a new application to a 20-room motel/hotel with now 271 fixture units and using 4,058 gpd. Somehow the project engineer has bent the rules of mathematics to try and allow only 1,700 gpd using a 10,000-gallon 30
holding tank. Of course, after three or four days, the holding tank would not continue to work anymore due to the buildup of effluent discharge. Yet, once again, it was allowed to pass through the approval process with ease and a lack of concern for polluting the nearby lagoon ocean and beach areas.
Oddly, all of the following are code violations supported by staff, which would not be allowed for other development projects. Allows off-site parking beyond 300 feet and allowing lifts. Yet, the Malibu Beach Inn across the street was allowed neither by City Council.
Approving a four-story project by purposely measuring the height incorrectly and stating the parking garage is subterrain when all but three feet are above ground level.
Allowing a 52.5 retaining wall when does not meet the intention of the LCP.
Staff calling this project a motel when it does not meet the definition of one.
Staff Response
In anticipation of the Malibu Civic Center Area Prohibition, a number of applicants submitted applications just before the effective date of the prohibition. At the time of the application submittal, it was standard practice for the City not to require studies or OWTS reports at the time of initial submittal. A new application today would require that these documents be included. In order for projects to be added to Table 4-zz, the Regional Water Board only required that applications be submitted prior to the deadline. As a result, all properties in the prohibition area with an open application submitted prior to the effective date of the prohibition were placed on Table 4-zz.
After the project was initially submitted, the owners changed architects and new project plans were prepared for a different commercial retail commercial development. In 2018, the project was redesigned once again for the proposed motel. As stated before, staff met with the Reginal Water Board and they concluded that the project remains on the list of projects exempt from the prohibition despite the project changes.
The offsite parking relates to temporary events where more parking spaces are generated than those provided. The Planning Commission added this condition to the project. While staff is responsible to verify compliance with this condition, it was not staff’s decision to permit offsite parking for special events.
As conditioned, except for the Building Code-required egress and vehicular entrance, the basement will not daylight more than three feet as measured from the bottom of the floor above to exterior grade adjacent to the basement. As a basement, it is not counted as a story. While there are three levels, the lobby and two-story motel do not overlap. 31
The Planning Commission approved the project as a motel with the requested variance for the height of retaining wall. Appellant and all parties were provided a fair hearing where they were allocated the ability to submit evidence both orally and in writing, and the appeal contains no evidence of departures from these procedures or improper action by the Planning Commission. In addition, any inconsistency would be cured by the proceedings before the City Council in this appeal.
Appeal Item 20. Planning Commission decision is contrary to law The decision is most obviously contrary to law given findings cannot be made due to so many code violations.
Staff Response
On July 17, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-24, adopting the IS/MND and approving the proposed project. The project includes three variances.
Variances are not code violations and are specifically allowed if the required findings are made. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.72.010 (Purpose), variances are intended to relieve the owner of property from standards or requirements of the code which make impractical or impossible reasonable use of a property in the same manner that other property of like character in the same vicinity and zone can be used. A variance shall not be granted which confers a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The Planning Commission may approve variances provided it makes specific findings. Variances are rarely granted, as the findings are difficult to make—but are proper when evidence supports the required findings.
CORRESPONDENCE: All public correspondence received during the Planning Commission public hearing process is included as an attachment to the Planning Commission Agenda Report herein included as Exhibit D and J. Exhibit J includes all the public correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission after the April 17, 2023 Commission Agenda Report was published.
Staff received a letter from the appellant, dated April 19, 2024. This letter is also included as Exhibit K. The appellant requested that this letter take precedence over previous comments in the appeal document related to cultural resources. The letter states that the City Public Works Director stated that Phase 2 of the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility is in the process of removing Serra Retreat from the area covered in this phase due to the large amount of archaeological artifacts found buried 30 feet deep through the entirety of the neighborhood. The letter also includes correspondence with Ms. Barbara Tejada, Supervisor, Cultural Resources Program for the California State Parks. Ms.
Tejada recommends that Phase I and II studies be conducted on the property to ensure that cultural deposits are not encountered. Ms. Tejada also provided a list of archaeological studies, mostly Phase I studies within a one-mile radius of the project site.
If only a Phase I study was conducted, it typically means no sensitive archaeological 32
resources were found during the on-foot investigation and no sensitive cultural resources are known immediately next to the property.
Staff maintains a record of archaeological studies conducted for properties in the City.
Based on these records, the nearest known archaeological site is over 1,000 feet north from the subject property. While there are a few known archaeological sites in Serra Retreat, staff does not have evidence to support that archaeological artifacts have been found through the entirety of the neighborhood. In fact, many of the Phase I studies conducted for properties in the area concluded that no known cultural resources were encountered during the archaeologists on-foot investigation and encountering these resources during construction would be unlikely. As stated in Appeal Item 14 above, Mitigation Measures TCR-1, -2, and -3 were added to the IS/MND to further prevent impacts that could occur from unanticipated encounters with tribal cultural resources, beyond those assured by the City’s existing conditions of approval. If concerns remain over potential cultural resources impacts, the Council may add a condition that requires archaeological and Chumash representative monitoring during any land disturbance or grading activities.
PUBLIC NOTICE: On February 29, 2024, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and a public notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property (Exhibit L). At the March 25, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council continued the subject item to the May 13, 2024 Regular City Council meeting.
SUMMARY: Based on the record as a whole, including but not limited to all written and oral testimony offered in connection with this matter, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-43 denying Appeal Nos. 22-002 and 22-003 and approving CUPA No. 13-006 and JUPA No. 14-001, subject to the conditions of approval in the resolution.
EXHIBITS:
A. City Council Resolution No. 24-19 (Distributed under a separate cover) B. Appeal No. 23-04
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24
D. April 17, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda Report Item 1.B.
E. Project Plans
F. GeoConcept, Inc. Bluff Memo
G. Architectural Exhibits
H. Structural Setback Memo
I. Nearby Retaining Walls
J. Additional Correspondence
K. Appellant Letter, dated April 19, 2024
L. Public Hearing Notice
33 Exhibit A
City Council Resolution No. 24-19 will be distributed
under separate cover.
34 EXHIBIT B
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 20-003 AND INITIAL STUDY NO. 20-003 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 09-067 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,693 SQUARE FOOT, 20-ROOM MOTEL ABOVE A NEW
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT,
ROOFTOP DECK WITH SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND BAR AREA,
GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPING, A NEW ONSITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-002 FOR A MOTEL IN THE
COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING-i ZONING DISTRICT AND SALE OF ALCOHOL; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 18-030 FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO I, VARIANCE NO. 18-031 FOR A
RETAINING WALL THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 12 FEET IN HEIGHT, VARIANCE NO. 20-035 FOR SURFACE
PARKING WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 18-025 FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF 18 FEET, NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET FOR A FLAT ROOF, LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL VISITOR SERVING-I ZONING DISTRICT AT 22959
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(SURFRIDER PLAZA, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. On November 4, 2009, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 09-067, was submitted for the Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project (Former Project) consisting of a new commercial plaza providing 7,713 gross square feet of floor area between two buildings and 82 surface and subterranean parking spaces, located at 22959 Pacific Coast I-Iighway (PCH) in the Commercial Visitor Serving-i (CV-1) zoning district, by Surfrider Plaza, LLC. The application was routed to the City Geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental I-Iealth Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29).
B. On November 5, 2009, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) approved Resolution No. R4-2009-007, banning the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) in the area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB) approved that same resolution, thereby amending the State Basin Plan. The adopted plan for a specific Prohibition Area includes the Project Site. Since an application for the Project Site was submitted prior to the adoption of Resolution No. R4-2009-007, the application is listed on Table 4-zz as being eligible for a new OWTS.
C. On June 15, 2017, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IVIND) for the Former Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. The 30-day public review period ran from July 19, 2017.
EXHIBIT C
76 Resolution No 23-24
D. On June 27, 2017, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed and considered the Former Project, written reports, Initial Study (IS) No. 16-003/MND No. 17-001 and provided recommendations to the Planning Commission.
E. On June 11,2018, the applicant submitted revised plans for a new motel instead of the previously submitted commercial retail plaza. The revised project plans were then routed to all applicable City departments and County agencies for review. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 18-002, Variance (VAR) Nos. 18-030, 18-03 1 and 20-035, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 18-025, and Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA) No. 18-001 were added to the Malibu Inn Motel Project (Project).
F. On June 17, 2020, staff deemed the application complete.
G. On February 19, 2021, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. The 30-day public review period ran from February 19, 2021 to March 22, 2021. The Draft IS/MND No. 20-003 was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, that began on March 29, 2021 and ended on April 28, 2021.
I-I. On June 10, 2021, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.
I. On June 24, 2021, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.
J. On August 5, 2021, a Notice of Planning Commission Public 1-Tearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
K. On August 26, 2021, a Notice of Adjournment was issued for the August 26, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting and adjourned to the September 8,2021 Adjourned Regular meeting to allow staff additional time to gather additional information and for the applicant to install story poles to represent the proposed motel building.
L. On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 1,2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
M. On November 1, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the December 6, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
N. On December 6, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 11, 2022 Special Planning Commission meeting.
0. On January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to the April 4, 2022 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
P. On April 4, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. 77 Resolution No 23-24
Q. On March 23, 2023, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
R. On April 17, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the item to the May 31, 2023 Special Planning Commission meeting.
S. On May 31, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information iii the record. In a 3—2 vote, Commissioners Hill and Mazza dissenting, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back as a consent item an updated resolution approving the proposed project with revisions to several ofthe required findings and conditions of approval.
T. On July 17, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted revised Resolution No. 23-24 under the consent calendar.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed Project. The Planning Department prepared an initial study (IS No. 20-003) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The initial study analyzed the Project and determined that it will not have a significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures; subsequently, IvTND No. 20—003 was prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
On February 19, 2021, the City made IS/IVIND No. 20-003 available to the public for the required 30-day circulation period, which concluded on March 22, 2021. The Draft IS/MND was circulated again for another 30-day review period, directed towards agencies due to a file discrepancy, that began on March 29, 2021. The State Clearinghouse closed its review period on April 28, 2021. A total of twenty-seven pieces of correspondence were received during the public comment period, which are discussed in a Response to Comments (Section 2.0) added to the Final IS/MND.
The Planning Commission has considered IS/MND No. 20-003 together with the comments received during the public review process. IS/MND No. 20-003 reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for this Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, nor does it have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
The Planning Commission further finds that less than significant impacts on the environment are expected from the Project, with implementation of mitigation measures. Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.
78 Resolution No 23-24
SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.
Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 17, 2023, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 09- 067 for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, rooftop deck with swimming pool, spa and bar area, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a new OWTS and authorization for the Planning Director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol; including CUP No. 18-002 for a motel in the CV-1 zoning district and sale of alcohol, VAR No. 18-030 construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, VAR No. 18-031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height, VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback, and SPR No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the CV-1 zoning district at 22959 PCI-I.
The Project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion of the proposed discretionary requests, the Project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.
A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
1. Evidence in the record, including submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable development standards inclusive of the requested discretionary requests. The Project has been reviewed for confonnance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD.
2. IS/MND No. 20-003 was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Other alternatives were analyzed. This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the Project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources. Evidence in the record demonstrates an alternative project will not have a significant environmental or visual advantage as the development is sited within the property dimensions of legal lots and the footprint of existing and previously existing development. As a result, the Project, as proposed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
3. The Project and IS/MND No. 20-003 were not reviewed by the ERB. However, as a matter of policy, the Former Project for a commercial shopping center and associated IS/MND were reviewed by ERB. The potential environmental impacts as a result of the Project are considered less significant than the former Project. The ERB recommendation and comment were addressed in IS/MND No. 20-003 and a condition has been added requiring a rootball barrier for the Sycamore trees to minimize potential root damage to the adjacent sidewalk and parking lot.
B. Variance for Retaining Wall in Excess of 12 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.26)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. In order to place a building on 79 Resolution No 23-24
the Project Site, the northern slope must be stabilized, and a structural setback is required from the slope to the proposed motel building. The retaining wall would be constructed to secure the graded slope following the excavation and to provide a 15-foot structural setback from the slope. The retaining wall is 21 feet, 10 inches in height above finished grade. The retaining wall would extend below finished grade to accommodate the subterranean parking level and provide for an adequate foundation. The applicant provided evidence showing other nearby commercial developments were constructed with similar retaining walls. Therefore, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning and site constraints.
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of a motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the ISIMND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. Other nearby commercial development has been constructed with similar retaining walls, which support the toe of the slope. The site’s topography is predominantly characterized by a steep slope. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV I zoning district. The proposed variance would not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner in that there are other examples of similar retaining walls constructed for nearby development and, without the variance, a commercial development on the property would not be feasible.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV—l zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The variance request is to allow for the construction of a retaining wall that exceeds 12 feet in height to allow for the development of the proposed motel in the CV-1 zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is primarily sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site; however, given that the site is predominantly on a slope, the proposed retaining wall in excess of 12 feet in height cannot be avoided. The proposed retaining is a building code requirement to maintain a horizontal structural setback to the toe of the slope. The proposed retaining wall is necessary for any new building on the subject parcel.
7. The Prqject complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development are conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
C. Variance for Construction for Surface Parking within the Required Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.26)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. Without allowing the required 80 Resolution No 23-24
parking within the front yard setback, there would not be sufficient space to site for the required parking. The proposed variance would allow for the parking required for the use to be provided onsite as required by the LCP.
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of the proposed motel in compliance with the minimum required parking spaces. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project as conditioned will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. Almost all other commercial development on this stretch of PCH is developed with parking within the required front yard setback. There is no alternative development pad on the property that would avoid encroachment of the required parking in the front yard setback. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding properties and in the CV-1 zoning district.
Therefore, the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner as it is consistent with other surrounding development subject to similar site constraints.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV-l zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The proposed uses are consistent with the allowed uses in the applicable CV-1 zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is utilizing the disturbed portion of the subject site, and there is an existing surface parking lot located within the front yard setback. Locating the surface parking lot within the front yard setback cannot be avoided due to the steep slope to the north of the parking lot.
7. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
D. Site Plan Review for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27.5)
1. Evidence in the record, including submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable development standards inclusive ofthe requested discretionary requests. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD.
2. The Project would alter the visual appearance of the Project Site, but would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the Project Site or introduce any aesthetic elements incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and the height of the proposed building has been limited to minimize impacts to visual character. The Project Site is buffered from surrounding 81 Resolution No 23-24
residential areas by open space and the incorporation of additional landscaping. The design of the proposed building would also serve as a barrier that reduces noise transmission, as patios would face away from residential areas and the building would contain some vehicle noise within the subterranean parking garage. The Project does not propose amplified sound (music, concerts, etc.).
3. Photo simulations to show the design and scale of the proposed development from three vantage points were submitted instead of story poles. As demonstrated in the photo simulations, due to the size, shape, and topography ofthe lot, the proposed development will blend into the hillside, will be minimally visible from public viewing areas or scenic roads, and is not located within primary views of neighboring properties.
4. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
5. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental I-Iealth Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, Project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the MMC and the LCP, inclusive of the VARs and SPR.
E. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical report and conditions required by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, including foundations, OWTS, and drainage. As such, the proposed Project will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.
2. The Project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to Project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
3. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
4. Evidence in the record demonstrates that there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen any adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity as none are expected as a result of the Project.
5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.
82 Resolution No 23-24
F. Conditional Use Permit for New Motel Use and Sale of Alcohol (MMC Section
17.66.080)
1. The Project Site is zoned for commercial use, and the proposed motel use is conditionally permitted in the CV—l zoning district and is consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity.
2. The proposed motel use is consistent with the commercial zoning designation and consistent with existing commercial land uses in the vicinity. The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi—family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district.
3. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed motel land use. The Project is located within the developed commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi—family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district.
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The existing legal non—conforming commercial parking lot as a stand-alone use is being replaced with a commercial use that in contrast is authorized with a conditional use permit in the CV—l zoning designation.
5. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses within the zoning district and surrounding area, as it is a commercial use contemplated by the zoning district. The Project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district, which is compatible with the commercial zoning in the general area.
6. There would be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.
Adequate public services and utilities are available to serve the Project. The Project does not affect solar access or adversely impact existing public and private views.
7. Adequate public access is available to serve the Project. Access to the Project is from PCI-I, an existing public highway. The public, as well as emergency vehicles, would enter and exit the Project Site via PCI-I. The Project Site is designed with throughput access from PCH to the Aviation Nation Site parking lot, negating any need for vehicles to turnaround. The modified driveways would require review and approval of an Encroachment Permit by Caltrans. During its review of the permit, Caltrans would ensure the driveways are properly designed to ensure adequate emergency access. All roadway connections would be constructed in conformance with City and Caltrans standards, and would be consistent with LACED access requirements.
8. Evidence in the record demonstrates the proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
83 Resolution No 23-24
9. The Project will be in full compliance with all applicable State, County and City of Malibu ordinances and laws.
10. As designed and conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, and will provide the public benefit of a potable water supply for doniestic use and fire protection.
11. There is clear and compelling evidence that the Project is not located in an area determined by the City to be at risk from earth movement, flooding or liquefaction. With the implementation of the recommendations of the Project geotechnical engineer and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, less than significant impacts on structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards are expected. The Project, as conditioned, will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, fire or any other hazards.
G. Variance for Construction on Slopes Steeper than 3 to 1 (MMC Section 17.72.060)
1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property. The site’s topography is primarily a steep slope. The proposed development requires grading and excavation of approximately 0.77 acre of the Project Site, which includes a portion of the slope that is steeper than 3 to I, to accommodate a subterranean garage and structural setback to the proposed motel building.
2. The proposed variance will allow construction of the proposed motel. The Project has been evaluated for impacts on environmental factors pursuant to CEQA. Based on the IS/MND and LCP conformance review, the Project, as conditioned, will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or the property owner. The required grading and excavation of the lower portion of the 3 to 1 slope within the site boundary and adjacent to the existing parking lot is necessary to provide a level building area for the motel building, subterranean parking level, and at-grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP as the improvements, consisting of a motel and associated development, are conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district.
5. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the Project Site. The variance request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVI zoning district. The motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district and development on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 is necessary so that the motel development can be constructed in the CV- I zoning district.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed development is primarily sited on the disturbed portion of the subject site.
7. The Project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals and permits. Construction of the motel and 84 Resolution No 23-24
associated development is conditioned to comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City agencies and Project consultants.
8. The Project is conditioned for all recommendations of the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers to be incorporated into the final design. Among other conditions, the project was also conditioned to provide a construction staging plan, adhere to limited construction hours, construction management techniques, and dark sky lighting requirements, fuel modification plans, and grading and water quality provisions. With these conditions, the requested variance will not be detrimental to health, safety and welfare of the City.
SECTION 4. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity.
According to the State Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control, a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity may be required for the overconcentration of licenses. Based on CUP findings in Section 3(0) of this resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare and is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council authorizes the Planning Director to prepare and submit a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity for the proposed use to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department.
SECTION 5. Planning Commission Action.
Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby adopts IS-MND No. 20-003 and approves CDP No. 09-067, CUP No. 18-002, VAR Nos. 18-030, 18-031, and 20-035, and SPR No. 18-025, subject to the following conditions.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions
1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemniiy and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City’s actions concerning this Project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City’s actions or decisions in connection with this Project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this Project.
2. Approval of this application is to allow for the Project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Construction of a new, 2-stoiy, 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage (0.15 FAR);
b. Rooftop deck with a swimming pool, spa and bar;
c. Surface parking lot;
d. Hardscape and landscaping;
e. Grading and retaining wall;
85 Resolution No 23-24
Page Ii of29
f Onsite wastewater treatment system; and
g. Discretionary Requests:
i. CUP No. 18-002 for a new motel in the CV-1 zoning district and sale of alcohol;
ii. VAR No. 18-030 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1; iii. VAR No. 18-031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height;
iv. VAR No. 20-03 5 for surface parking within the required front yard setback; and
v. SPR No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof
3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans on—file with the Planning Department, date-stamped May 18, 2020 and March 20, 2023. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event the Project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.
4. This conditional use permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until all appeals are exhausted, and the property owner executes the Affidavit of the Acceptance of Conditions. Said documents shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder and a certified copy of said recordation shall be filed with the Planning Department within 10 days of the effective date of the approval.
5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.
6. This CDP shall expire if the Project has not commenced within three (3) years afier issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.
In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the Project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.
7. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.
8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, WD29, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.
9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the 86 Resolution No 23-24
Project is still in compliance with the MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.
10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the CCC, have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.
11. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.
Lighting
12. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60- watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.
13. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.
Pool lighting may be permitted provided such lighting is the minimum necessary to comply with applicable safety regulations.
14. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.
15. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.
16. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.
17. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.
18. Three sequential violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site. 87 Resolution No 23-24
Construction / Framing
19. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
20. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 am, to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.
21. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires will be rinsed off prior to leaving the property.
22. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.
23. Prior to issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The WRRP shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 50 percent of all construction generated by the Project.
24. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.
Cultural Resources
25. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 1 7.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.
26. If human bone is discovered, the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. These require notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American 1-leritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.
88 Resolution No 23-24
Site-Specific Conditions
27. No off-site sale of alcohol shall be permitted. Alcohol shall only be served for room service and within the rooftop deck for motel guests.
28. This CUP permits the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The property owner / motel operator shall obtain all necessary approvals from ABC. Once obtained, the applicant is required to provide the Planning Department a copy of the issued ABC license.
29. A copy of the current ABC license shall be kept on the premises of the establishment and be presented to City staff, including the City’s Planning Director and Code Enforcement staff, law enforcement officers or their duly authorized representatives, upon request.
30. At all times during the conduct of the permitted use, the permittee shall maintain and keep in effect valid licensing approval from ABC. Should such licensing be denied, expire or lapse at any time in the future, the approval of alcohol sale pursuant to this permit is subject to modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section
17. 66. 100(C).
3 1. Prior to the commencement of alcohol service, the property owner / operator shall install small signs in the interior of the business, as depicted on the project plans, requesting that patrons be courteous and quiet when occupying outdoor areas and stating that alcohol may only be consumed in compliance with the motel’s ABC license.
32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
33. No live entertainment is permitted on the property except in compliance with an approved temporary use permit provided it can be demonstrated that the noise generated from the event would be in compliance with Condition No. 35 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. Amplified sound may be permitted provide it is consistent with Condition Nos. 35 and 126.
34. The property owner / operator shall adhere to a “good neighbor” policy, meaning that the operator and employees must respect the rights of neighboring properties and, to the best of their ability, shall ensure their patrons’ compliance with the City’s noise and smoking regulations and all conditions of approval for the subject use relating to parking, smoking, litter, noise, loitering, etc.
35. Noise emanating from the premises shall not be plainly audible at a distance of five feet of any residential unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am., as required by MMC Section 8.24.050(L).
36. The onsite kitchen may only serve food and beverages to motel guests.
37. The motel operator must adhere to all laws related to the sale of alcohol. Violations of such laws may be cause for modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section 17.66.100(C).
89 Resolution No 23-24
38. No other new signage is permitted under this application; a sign permit shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation of any new sign.
39. The landscaping plan must be revised to include a detail depicting a barrier encircling root balls to be used for all the California Sycamore trees in order to minimize potential root damage to the sidewalk and parking lot. The planting of the California Sycamore trees must be in compliance with this detail.
40. The swimming pool may only be used by hotel guests no later than 10 pm. All pool lights must be turned off for the night no later than 10 pm.
41. Prior to Building Safety Division plan check submittal, the applicant / property owners must revise the project plans so that the soil abutting the subterranean garage does not daylight more than three vertical feet as measured from the bottom of the first floor.
42. The third driveway curb cut on the Aviation Nation Site from west to east must be removed.
43. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the property owner must pay the in—lieu fee for the lower cost overnight accommodations in compliance with LIP Section 12.10.
44. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the property owner / applicant must provide a rooftop floor plan showing the location of the umbrellas in compliance with the height limit.
45. Vehicle lifts are allowed, but not to satisfy required parking, and only if backup power sufficient to operate lifts is provided to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
46. No more than eight employees can be at the site at any one shift.
47. Special events involving non-guests shall require a temporary use permit.
48. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.49, the property owner or applicant must record a covenant agreement requiring a covenant of easement to be recorded immediately after any of the two properties is sold to a different buyer in a form and manner approved by the City Attorney (based upon advice of the City Engineer and Planning Director) to provide egress at the property located at 22969 PCH (Malibu Inn) to benefit the property located at 22959 PCH (Malibu Inn Motel).
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
49. The Project shall comply with all the mitigation measures included in the MMRP of IS/MND No. 20-003.
Colors and Materials
50. The Project is visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas and shall incorporate colors and materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or 90 Resolution No 23-24
light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans.
b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.
51. Retaining walls visible from beaches or public viewing areas shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials. The colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the grading and building plans.
52. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landfoims and vegetation. The colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the grading and building plans.
Conditional Use Permit
53. This conditional use permit may be reviewed by the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) and/or Planning Commission on an as-needed basis at the discretion of the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) or Planning Commission. Should it be determined that a review is required, the applicant shall pay the Planning Department staff site inspection fee in effect at the time ofrequest for a site inspection. A staff planner will conduct a site visit to veri~’ compliance with the provisions set forth in this resolution. If necessary, the Planning Director will determine whether the conditional use permit may be brought back to the Planning Commission for additional conditions to mitigate and/or prevent nuisances that were identified during the site inspection or made aware of by members of the public. Possible mitigation measures can include:
a. Modi~’ing the hours of operation;
b. Incorporating noise mitigating measures/devices;
c. Traffic safety measures;
d. Land use intensification or reconfiguration of shared parking that would result in a parking demand greater than approved under this application; or e. Other measures deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
54. The property owner / tenant shall not use the parking lot for any use other than the uses and activities explicitly permitted for the subject parcel or as permitted by a temporary use permit or filming permit.
55. The property owner and operator must secure an off-site parking area to accommodate vehicles for all events that overlap with other uses that will generate a patting demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property.
56. The conditional use permit may be modified by the Planning Commission and/or City Council pursuant to the procedures designated in the Malibu Municipal Code. 91 Resolution No 23-24
57. A conditional use permit that is valid and in effect, and was granted pursuant to the provisions of the MMC, shall run with the land and continue to be valid upon change of ownership of the land or any lawfully existing building or structure on the land.
58. This conditional use permit shall no longer be valid and in effect with the demolition of all buildings, including a major remodel constituting new development requiring a new CDP.
59. The conditional use permit may be revoked if the Planning Commission finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
a. The conditional use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner; b. One or more of the conditions found within this resolution have not been substantially met; or
c. The use for which the CUP was granted ceased for six successive calendar months after the start of operations, except in the case of natural disaster.
60. The Planning Commission may revoke the conditional use permit should the conditionally permitted use cease for six successive calendar months, except in the case of a natural disaster.
Building Plan ChecklDcpartment Conditions
Water Quality/Water Service
61. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Will Serve Letter from WD29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.
Biology/Landscaping
62. The use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance which has the potential to degrade biological resources shall prohibited throughout the City of Malibu. The eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration shall consider first the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls. 1-lerbicides may be selected only after all other non-chemical methods have been exhausted. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and use for a limited time.
63. 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.
64. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.
65. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). 92 Resolution No 23-24
66. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.
67. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
68. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner/applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the WD29.
69. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three sequential violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.
70. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).
71. Plantings required for fuel modification must be native, drought—tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.
72. Use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the cave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.
73. Delete Dragon tree (Dracaena draco) from the planting plan along the PH frontage. All street frontage trees are limited to species natives to the Santa Monica Mountains.
Environmental Health
74. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.
75. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11 —inch by 1 7—inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).
93 Resolution No 23-24
76. A final design and system specifications shall be submitted as to all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final design drawings and calculations must be signed by a California registered civil engineer, a registered environmental health specialist or a professional geologist who is responsible for the design. The final OWTS design drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).
77. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42 inches tall.
78. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.
The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing fixture equivalents, and/or the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design;
b. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
c. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolationlinfiltration tests to the Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
d. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:
For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.
94 Resolution No 23-24
79. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setbacks must be approved by the City Building Safety Division. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted to Building and Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives, etc.). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. The architectural/structural/ waterproofing plans must show the location of OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable).
80. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the applicant shall provide engineer’s certification for reduction in setbacks to buildings or structures: All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Table
15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certi~’ unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced. Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table
15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California— licensed architect, then the required architect’s certification may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setbacks to the wastewater system. In this case, the engineer must include in his/her letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback, then the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Safety Division plan check. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters.
81. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.
82. A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorders Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.
95 Resolution No 23-24
83. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) ifthe primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City ofMalibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair ofthe private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair.
Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Environmental Sustainability Department.
84. Proofofownership ofsubject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
85. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider ofthe proposed OWTS.
86. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner ofthe subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion ofthe City ofMalibu to maintain the proposed OWTS after construction shall be submitted. Only original wet signature documents are acceptable and shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
87. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City ofMalibu and the holder ofthe fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City ofMalibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any fUture purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the MMC, Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
88. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
89. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area ifapplicable.
90. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit
91. The applicant/property owner must submit wastewater plans, and all necessary supporting forms and reports to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to assure compliance with the California Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region 96 Resolution No 23-24
(Basin Plan). Prior to the issuance of any City-issued development permits, RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements shall be obtained and submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
Geology
92. All recommendatioi~s of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City Geologist shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
93. Final plans approved by the City Geologist shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require amendment of the CDP or a new CDP.
Public Works
Street Improvements
94. The Project proposes to construct a new driveway and other improvements within Caltrans’ right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for the proposed improvements.
95. The Project must comply with all applicable Caltrans requirements.
Grading/Drainage
96. Exported soil from the 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 LIP Section 8.3.
A note shall be placed on the project plans that addresses this condition.
97. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the Project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
97 Resolution No 23-24
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes;
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan; and
h. 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.
98. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESI-IA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.
Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESI-IA or on slopes greater than 4 to I 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.
99. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the Project’s private ston~ drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to grading or building permit issuance.
The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, post— construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public street and any drainage easements.
SloritiWaler
100. A Local 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 Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sandbag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
98 Resolution No 23-24
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitaiy/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with 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 101. A Stonn Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis ofthe pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.
The SWMP shall identi& the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.
102. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.3 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site.
The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs);
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs;
d. Drainage improvements;
e. Methods for onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site Project impacts;
f Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; g. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. Once the plan is approved and stamped by the Public Works Department, the original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted prior to the Public Works Department approval of building plans for the Project.
Il/Iiscel/aneous
103. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
99 Resolution No 23-24
104. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right-of—way. 105. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit a PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.
Swimming Pool and Spa
106. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only ifthe following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 (including tributaries).
Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
107. 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.
Commercial Development
108. All commercial developments shall be designed to control the runoff of pollutants from structures, parking and loading docks. The following minimum measures shall be implemented to minimize the impacts of commercial developments on water quality:
a. Proper design of loading and unloading docks.
i. Cover loading/unloading dock areas or design drainage to minimize runon and runoff of storm water. ii. Direct connections to storm drains from depressed loading/unloading docks are prohibited.
b. Properly design Repair/Maintenance Bays
i. Repair/maintenance bays must be indoors or designed to prohibit storm water runoff or contact with storm water runoff
ii. Repair/maintenance bays shall be designed to capture all wash water, leaks, and spills. Connect drains to a sump for collection and disposal:
Direct connection of the repair/maintenance bays to the storm drain is prohibited. Obtain an Industrial waste discharge permit if required. 100
Resolution No 23-24
c. Properly Design Vehicle/Equipment Wash Areas
i. Self-contained and/or covered wash areas shall be equipped with a clarifier or other pretreatment facility and properly connected to a sanitary sewer.
d. Properly designed Parking Lots (5,000 square feet of impervious surface or 25 parking spaces.)
i. Minimize impervious surfacing for parking area.
ii. Infiltrate runoff before it reaches a storm drain system. iii. Treat to remove oil and petroleum hydrocarbons at parking lots that are heavily used.
iv. Ensure adequate operation and maintenance of treatment systems particularly sludge and oil removal system fouling and plugging prevention control.
Restaurants
1 09. Properly design equipment/accessory wash areas:
a. Install self-contained wash area, equipped with grease trap, and properly connected to Sanitary Sewer.
b. If the Wash area is located outdoors, it must be covered, paved, have secondary containment and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer.
Trash Storage Areas
110. Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area.
111. Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.
Ott/door Material Storage
112. Materials with the potential to contaminate storm water must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet shed or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes or curbs.
113. The storage areas must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. 114. The storage area must have a roof or awning to minimize collection of storm water within the secondary containment area.
Prior to Final Sign-Off/Prior to Occupancy
115. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the Project site and determine that all planning conditions have been implemented to protect natural resources in compliance with approved plans and this resolution. 116. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report 101
Resolution No 23-24
(WRRP Summary Report). The final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled, broken down by material types. The Environmental Sustainability Department shall approve the Final Summary Report. 117. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division. 118. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A final approval and Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the Project complies with this CDP. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.
119. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Deed Restrictions
120. The property owner(s) are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indenrni~’ and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the pern~itted Project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning approval. 121. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 13-19.
The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.
Fixed Conditions
122. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
123. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.
Mitigation Measures
124. Worker Education and Unanticipated Discovery Response. A qualified paleontologist as approved by the City of Malibu and the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum Vertebrate Paleontology Department shall be retained prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of any individual project phase. Prior to ground-disturbance, 102
Resolution No 23-24
the qualified paleontologist shall provide the construction crew(s) a brief summaly of the paleontological potential of the underlying geology, the rationale behind the need for protection of paleontological resources, information on the initial identification of paleontological resources, and procedures to implement in the event paleontological resources are discovered.
In the event paleontological resources are uncovered at any point during construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall halt ground—disturbing activities and noti& the Paleontologist and City, at which time the Paleontologist shall conduct an on—site inspection of the discovery, make a preliminary taxonomic identification, determine whether further action is required, and recommend measures for further evaluation, and/or collection of the resource as appropriate.
a. Ground—disturbance shall not resume in the vicinity ofthe of the discovery until the Paleontologist has assessed the resource.
b. The Paleontologist hall have the authority to halt and/or redirect construction activities to allow a reasonable amount of space and time to evaluate potential resources.
c. Significant resources shall be collected, prepared, and curated with an accredited institution as determined necessary by the Paleontologist. 125. Construction Noise Control. All construction machinery and delivery trucks shall be maintained to the highest level of performance, and shall be outfitted with all noise reduction accessories, e.g., mufflers, enclosures, etc., that are offered by the equipment manufacturers. The construction site shall be laid out such that materials are stored and staged near the southwestern edge of the site to maximize the distance from the residence and daycare. A temporary barrier capable ofreducing the intensity of sound shall be erected between the project site and the school during the construction period. Prior to construction, all residences within 500 feet of the property line shall be individually notified of the project’s construction schedule. Prior to construction, a sign shall be posted on the site that is legible from at least 50 feet off-site. The sign shall include a telephone number that residents can call to inquire about the construction process and to register complaints. The project applicant shall designate a “noise control coordinator” who will reply to all construction noise—related questions and complaints. Pile driving shall not be conducted on-site unless approved by the City.
126. Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Amplified sound outdoors is prohibited, except that ambient music is allowed in the swimming pool and hallway areas, as long as it is not audible within five feet of any neighboring building, and the applicant prepares a noise study.
127. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 75-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall assess the find. The Lead Agency or Project manager shall contact the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians to consult if any such find occurs within areas culturally and traditionally affiliated with the Fernandeflo Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. 103
Resolution No 23-24
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission shall certi& the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17111 of July 2023.
SKYLA EAK, PlanniI~g Commission Chair
ATTEST:
I.A -
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20 (Appeals), 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 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.
Appeal forms and fee schedule may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval 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 ~~v.coastal.ca.gov or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 ofthe MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-24 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the special meeting held on the 17111 of July 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Jennings, Peak and Smith
NOES: I Commissioner: Hill
ABSTAIN: I Commissioner: Mazza
ABSENT: 0
—. - A ai a...
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
104
Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: April 4, 2023 Meeting date: April 17, 2023 Subject: Malibu Inn Motel - Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003 and Initial Study No. 20-003, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-002, Variance Nos. 18-030, 18-031, and 20-035, and Site Plan Review No. 18-025 – An application for development of a motel project
Location: 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4452-019-005
Owner: Surfrider Plaza, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24 (Attachment 1) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 20-003 and Initial Study (IS) No. 20-003 and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 09-067 for the construction of a new 7,693 square foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage, surface parking lot, rooftop bar area, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) and authorization for the Planning Director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 18-002 for a motel in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) zoning district and sale of alcohol; including Variance (VAR) No. 18-030 for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1, VAR No. 18-031 for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height, VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback, and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 18-025 for a building height in excess of 18 feet, not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) zoning district at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Surfrider Plaza, LLC); and request direction from the Planning Commission about whether the rooftop swimming pool and spa are uses authorized in the CV-1 zoning district.
Planning Commission
Meeting
04-17-23
Item
5.B.
EXHIBIT D
105
DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a Project overview, summary of the Project setting and surrounding land uses, description of the Project, an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) provisions, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the Project is consistent with the LCP and MMC. t the anua ry , pecial la nning ommission hea ring, the ommission continued the item to perm it staff time to verify with t he os ngele s egional ater ua lity ontrol oard ( egional ater oa rd) whethe r the proposed project is in com plia nce wit h the emorandum of ndersta nding betwee n the ity a nd egional ater oard. taff met wit h r. im ang, roundwater e rmitting nit upe rvisor of t he egional ate r oard, to discuss t he project on seve ral occasions, including at the site. r. ang conclude d that the propose d project remains on the prohibition exem ption list de spite the project change s since it wa s initially enliste d. owe ver, he pointe d out two major de ficie ncies in the project’s de sig n, which include ave rage wa stewate r flow a nd fut ure ex pansion dispe rsa l area.
In a 2011 submittal to the Regional Water Board, the project estimated an average wastewater flow of 1,700 gallons per day (gpd). At the time of Dr. Kang’s more recent review of the project, the average flow was 2,704 gpd. According to Dr. Kang, the average flow was not allowed to increase over the estimates provided in 2011. Additionally, the project’s OWTS was designed without a future dispersal area expansion. Dr. Kang suggested that the dispersal area shall be designed with a 100 percent future expansion area. Dr. Kang concurred that it was the City’s responsibility to administer the OWTS design standards for OWTSs in the prohibition area as established in the City’s agreement with the Regional Water Board.
The OWTS design report and OWTS plans for 22959 Pacific Coast Highway had several revisions between March 2022 and January 2023 to meet the Regional Water Board recommendations with the advanced OWTS. This includes a 10,000-gallon equalization tank to collect daily flow and meter it at a maximum of 1,700 gpd, a future dispersal field, and an advance OWTS that is designed and operated to meet the most stringent effluent limits established for the site by the Ocean Plan, Basin Plan, and the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order R4-2019-0024. The Regional Water Board recommended limits from the General WDR Order R4-2019-0024 for advance OWTS, which requires discharges from a secondary treatment system to meet bacteria standards for total coliform limitations of 23 MPN/100 mL (millilitres)2 weekly and 240 MPN/100 mL monthly.
Aside from the Regional Water Board’s recommendations, Tetra Tech, a third-party consulting firm that helps the City Environmental Health Division with complex project reviews, recommended effluent limits for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and weekly/monthly effluent limits for total coliform. The final revision of the OWTS design report meets all recommendations from the City Environmental Health Division, Regional Water Board and Tetra Tech. On January 20, 2023, the Conformance Review for the project was deemed complete.
The project includes a rooftop swimming pool. The swimming pool was brought to question at the last public hearing; specifically, whether the swimming pool is a permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted use in the CV-1 zone. The code is not clear on this matter. The Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) does not mention whether pools are permitted, conditionally permitted or accessory to any primary use other than for residences. The LIP 2 Formula to evaluate fecal coliform bacteria count in wastewater. 106
is similar but identifies pools for recreational facilities as a conditionally permitted use. Both the MMC and LIP permit health clubs and conditionally permit motels, which are known to include swimming pools. The commercial office building, the Tide Pool, across the street was granted a CDP for the construction of a swimming pool without a CUP. It is possible that the pool was approved because as a use that is incidental to commercial development it was not necessary to be listed as its own separate land use. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission about whether it finds the pool to be a permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted use. If the Commission finds that the pool is a permitted or conditionally permitted use, the resolution can be adopted as is. If the pool is found not to be a permitted use, the Commission may request staff to bring back a revised resolution as a consent item.
The project civil engineer re-evaluated the grading plans and grading quantities. In the process, they found an error in the grading quantities. Originally, there was a large amount of soil displaced to accommodate access into the subterranean garage. However, the applicant revised the design to both keep most of that soil while providing access to the garage through a tunnel and for the motel to comply with the height limit as measured from finished grade, but the grading sheet was not updated to reflect this revision. Revised grading plans and grading certificate have now been provided (Attachment 2). These revisions reduced the total non-exempt grading amount to 727 cubic yards, which is less than the maximum allowed. Therefore, VAR No. 18-029 was removed from the project.
The code requires one parking space for each keyed room and one parking space for the average, per-shift number of employees. Unfortunately, the code does not define “average, per-shift number of employees”. This could mean the average as calculated for every shift, per day or weekly. The applicant provided the following per shift breakdown:
• Night Manager Shift - 10 p.m. – 4 a.m. (1 person for 6 hours). 1 Manager • Morning Manager Shift - 4 a.m. – 10 a.m. (1 person for 6 hours). 1 Manager • Early Day Shift 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. (6 people for 6 hours). 2 maids, 1 chef, 1 server, 1 bartender and 1 manager
• Afternoon Shift - 4 p.m. – 10 p.m. (4 people for 6 hours). 1 manager, 1 chef, 1 server and 1 bartender
Based on this calculation, the average employee per shift is three (12 divided by 4). The project provides four parking spaces for employees. The applicant has agreed not to pursue vehicle lifts or stacked parking with this application. A condition of approval is included in the previous resolution for the project that no more than five employees can be at the site at any one shift. The condition has been revised to permit up to six employees based on the shift breakdown above. While lifts and stacked parking would provide extra parking spaces, these parking spaces are not permitted to count towards required parking spaces and additional employees/required parking spaces would be needed to operate valet services. The applicant also did not pursue an approval from the Public Works 107
Department to demonstrate safe operation of valet services onsite. Therefore, stack and valet parking are not part of this application.
Project Overview
The proposed Malibu Inn Motel (Project) is a 20-room motel with associated amenities, including a rooftop deck with a swimming pool, spa and bar (Attachment 2 – Project Plans).
The Project Site is the 51,352 square foot (1.18 acre) parcel located adjacent to the north (inland) side of PCH, and across the highway from the Malibu Pier (Figure 1 – Project Site Vicinity Map/Aerial). The Project Site is located in the CV-1 zoning district and the proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zone.
Figure 1 – Project Site Vicinity Map/Aerial
Source: Bing Maps
On November 4, 2009, the subject application was submitted for a former project consisting of a new commercial plaza providing 7,713 gross square feet of floor area 108
between two buildings and 82 surface and subterranean parking spaces. This former project also included a retaining wall of up to 62 feet, 2 inches in height above finished grade (with a total height of 77 feet, 5 inches above the bottom of the subterranean parking level).
On November 5, 2009, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) approved Resolution No. R4-2009-007, banning the use of OWTS in the area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB) approved that same resolution, thereby amending the State Basin Plan. The adopted plan for a specific Prohibition Area, which includes the Project Site, included the following mandates:
• All commercial properties must cease wastewater discharge by 2015; • All residential properties must cease wastewater discharge by 2019; and • No new wastewater discharge is allowed from any property in the prohibition boundary, except for those listed within the Resolution under Table 4-zz.
Since an application for the Project Site was submitted prior to the adoption of Resolution No. R4-2009-007, the application is listed on Table 4-zz as being eligible for a new OWTS.3
An IS/MND was prepared and published for the former project. On June 27, 2017, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) review the former project and the IS/MND and provided recommendations.
On June 11, 2018, the applicant submitted revised plans for a new motel instead of the previously submitted commercial retail plaza. The revised project plans were then routed to all applicable City departments and County agencies for review. IS/MND No. 20-003 was prepared and published for the revised project.
A CDP and CUP are required to permit the Project. The Project also requires approval of four variances from development standards established under the MMC Section
17.40.080 and LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 3.5, 3.8 and 8.3(C). With City approval of the requested entitlements, including VARs, SPR and CUP, the would be consistent with the MMC and LCP. Table 1 provides a summary of the required entitlements.
Table 1 – Required Project Entitlements
Application Description
3 At its February 2, 2017 Board Meeting, the LARWQCB approved an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City that extends the deadlines by which properties must cease discharging from septic systems and connect to the CCWTF. The updated MOU extends the schedule for the Phase 3 area from 2025 to November 2028.
109
CDP No. 09-067 Required for development in the Coastal Zone in accordance with LIP Section 13.3
CUP No. 18-002 For a new motel in the CV-1 zoning district and sale of alcohol VAR No. 18-030 For construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 VAR No. 18-031 For a retaining wall that is an integral part of the building in excess of 12 feet in height
VAR No. 20-035 For surface parking within the required front yard setback SPR No. 18-025 For a building height in excess of 18 feet not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof.
IS/MND No. 20-003 Adoption as required by CEQA
Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Table 2 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area of the Project Site.
Table 2 – Total Project Site Data
Lot Depth 237 feet, 2 inches
Lot Width 215 feet, 10 inches
Gross Lot Area 51,352 square feet (1.18 acres)
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes 0 square feet
Area Comprised of Easements 0 square feet
Net Lot Area* 51,352 square feet (1.18 acres)
*Net Lot Area=Gross Lot Area minus the area of public or private future street easements and 1:1 slope.
The Project Site’s land use designation pursuant to the Malibu General Plan is Commercial Visitor Serving (CV), and the zoning designation pursuant to the MMC and LCP is CV-1.
The CV-1 district is intended to provide for visitor serving uses, including motels and bed and breakfast inns, which serve visitors and residents that are designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environmental setting. The allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.15.
Project Jurisdiction: The Project Site is located within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map, so the Project is appealable to the CCC. The Project Site has no trails on or adjacent to it according to the LCP Park Lands Map and is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, which would trigger ERB review.
Project Setting: The Project Site is located in a commercial area of the City. The highest densities of development occur in the strip between the eastern City boundary and Pepperdine University. East of the Malibu Civic Center area, the land use pattern is characterized by a single lot depth of single-family and multi-family residential development. The Malibu Civic Center area contains the largest aggregation of existing and planned commercial uses in the City as well as Santa Monica College (under construction), regional administrative offices of the County of Los Angeles, library, and the 110
City of Malibu’s offices. Uses included in the commercial area are food stores, restaurants, small general clothing and specialty shops, financial institutions, and entertainment establishments.
Surrounding Land Uses: The Project Site is situated on the north side of PCH, bordered on the south by PCH and commercial land uses zoned CV-1 on the west and east. The Aviation Nation restaurant/retail establishment is located to the west and a single-story commercial building containing Chabad of Malibu preschool and the Traveler Surf Club and Coastal Outpost to the east. The Malibu Plaza, a contemporary three-story commercial mixed-use building, is located 175 feet east of the Project Site, adjacent to the north side of PCH and east of the Malibu Surf Shack. A single-family home is located to the north on Sweetwater Mesa Road on the top of the slope overlooking the Project Site.
A public parking lot is located across PCH from the Project Site, adjacent to the Malibu Pier, the beach, and the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1).
PCH, bordering the Project Site, is approximately 85 feet wide from curb to curb and supports five lanes, including two travel lanes in both directions and a center left-turn lane.
Curbside parallel parking is available along the Project Site frontage with more limited available curbside parking located across PCH. Complete sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. The nearest signalized intersection along PCH, at its intersection with the Malibu Pier approximately 150 feet west of the site, supports a pedestrian crosswalk and access to the Malibu Pier and driveway access to the Malibu Inn.
In the span between Malibu Beach and 22445 PCH (within approximately 1 mile to the east) there are currently 20 properties zoned CV-1 and one property zoned CV-2.
Table 3 summarizes the immediate surrounding land uses.
Table 3 – Surrounding Land Uses
Address/ APN Size Zone Land Use
North 3556 Sweetwater Mesa 2.49 acres RR-1 Single-Family Residence East 22941 PCH 0.12 acre CV-1 Chabad of Malibu
West 22969 PCH 0.69 acre CV-1
Restaurant (Aviation Nation
Dreamland); and Retail (Aviation
Nation)
South 23000 PCH 1.57 acres POS Malibu Pier/Public Parking Lot Source: City GIS
Existing Development
The southern 30 percent of the Project Site is currently improved with a privately operated, commercial, stand-alone surface parking lot that maintains 40 parking spaces. The northern 70 percent of the Project Site consists of a steep slope that rises approximately 190 feet above PCH, with the parking lot situated at the base of this slope. The slope face is sparsely vegetated, supporting primarily non-native grassland and weedy vegetation. 111
The existing parking lot on the Project Site currently has no direct access to PCH. There is an existing curb cut east of the Project Site but the lot’s boundary abutting PCH is fenced off with a chainlink fence. The parking lot is accessed from PCH via a shared driveway that crosses the westerly adjacent property at 22969 PCH. The property at 22969 PCH is developed with a commercial building which is currently occupied by a new restaurant, Aviation Nation Dreamland (formally Casa Escobar and Malibu Inn), and a retail store, Aviation Nation (“Aviation Nation Site”). Twenty-three of the required parking spaces for the Aviation Nation Site are located on the Project Site pursuant to a Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA).
The Project Site is subject to two covenants:
• A JUPA – There is an existing JUPA in place whereby a total of 23 parking spaces on the Project Site are dedicated to the Aviation Nation Site; and • A Wastewater Treatment Covenant – There is a covenant recorded on the Project Site for the future expansion of the Aviation Nation Site septic system leachfield.
The two properties would continue to be subject to the Wastewater Treatment Covenant and a modified JUPA. Under the recently approved JUPA, a total of 23 donor parking spaces to the Aviation Nation Site are required to be provided by the Project Site. The Project proposes 47 spaces, of which 23 donor parking spaces would be provided in compliance with these parking requirements. Of the remaining 24 parking spaces, 23 are required for the proposed motel and a surplus of one space.
Project Description
The Project involves the redevelopment of the Project Site with a two-story motel, providing 7,693 square feet of floor area (0.15 FAR), with 20 motel rooms and suites, and 47 compliant surface and subterranean parking spaces, which may also be stacked to provide additional parking spaces beyond those required. The ground floor of the building consists of the lobby and a valet parking garage. The main and upper floors accommodate the rooms and suites. A rooftop deck with swimming pool, spa and bar is proposed (Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan).
Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan
112
Source: Project Plans
As proposed, the FAR, building setbacks, landscaping, open space, and number and dimensions of parking spaces conform to the development standards of the MMC and LCP. The proposed height, parking front yard setback, grading and retaining wall height are also designed to be compliant with the MMC and LCP development standards, and can be approved pursuant to the requested VARs, and SPR. 113
Table 4 – Proposed Development Plan Summary
Site Area 51,352 square feet
Floor Area (0.15 FAR) 7,702.8 square feet
Motel Total FAR 7,693 square feet
Roof Deck 3,139 square feet
Subterranean Parking Garage 9,881 square feet
Total Landscape and Open Space
Open Space Area 27,652 square feet
Landscaped Area 29,173 square feet
Total Onsite Parking 47 spaces
At Grade Surface Parking 18 spaces
Subterranean Parking 29 spaces
FAR: FAR establishes the total allowable square footage for commercial development pursuant to the commercial development standards contained in LIP Section 3.8. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(5)(a), the gross square footage of all buildings on a given parcel shall be limited to a maximum FAR of 0.15, or 15 percent of the lot area (excluding any street rights of way). For the Project Site, that equates to:
• 0.15 FAR: The allowable FAR is 7,703 square feet. 7,693 square feet of FAR is proposed.
The development standards for commercial development regulate density based upon Lot Area and Floor Area, and the associated FAR calculation. • Lot Area is defined as — the total area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding any street rights of way.
• Floor Area is defined as — the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the interior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Floor area does not include interior parking spaces, loading space for motor vehicles, vehicular maneuvering areas, or any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet. (LIP Section 2.1) • FAR is defined as — the formula for determining permitted building area as a percentage of lot area; obtained by dividing the above-ground gross floor area of a building or buildings located on a lot or parcel of land by the total area of such lot or parcel of land. FAR does not include interior parking spaces, including its maneuvering and loading space, and below ground floor area. (LIP Section 2.1) 114
Landscape and Open Space: The commercial development standards further regulate density by requiring that a certain percentage of lot area be devoted to landscaping and open space. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(5)(b) 40 percent of lot area shall be devoted to landscaping and an additional 25 percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space.
For this Project Site, that equates to:
• Landscaping at 40% of lot area – The required landscaping area is 20,541 square feet and 29,173 square feet is proposed.
• Open Space at 25% of lot area – The required open space area is 12,838 square feet, which may include courtyards, patios, natural open space and additional landscaping, but not parking lots, buildings, exterior hallways and stairways, and 27,652 square feet is proposed.
Access and Parking: LIP Section 3.14 provides specific parking requirements and parking development standards, including location, access, screening and layout.
Access – The development proposes to use the existing, unused driveway on PCH at the eastern edge of the Project Site for direct access to the Project Site. The existing driveways at the adjacent Aviation Nation Site, including one signalized driveway, would also continue to provide vehicle access to the Project Site from the west. One of the four driveway cuts to the Aviation Nation Site is conditioned to be removed as it is not required for circulation and, in fact, is not considered safe. Since the Project Site will continue to provide shared parking to the Aviation Nation Site, an internal access is provided, and the parking lots will remain connected so that shared parking operations do not require entering PCH.
Parking – The required number of parking spaces for the Project, as per LIP Sections
3.14.2 and 3.14.3 is as follows: one parking space for each lodging unit (keyed room) is required, totaling 20 spaces; in addition to one space for the average, per-shift number of employees, totaling 3 spaces. A total of 23 spaces are required for the Project.
The Project Site would continue to be subject to a JUPA with the Aviation Nation Site, under which the Project Site is required to provide enough parking spaces to support land uses on both properties. The number of spaces allocated to the adjacent Aviation Nation Site is 23.
The Project would provide 47 parking spaces, as detailed in Table 5, Proposed Parking Program.
115
Table 5 – Proposed Parking Program
Required Parking Number of Spaces
Lodging (20 units) 20
Average, per-shift number of employees 3
JUPA- Aviation Nation 23
Total Onsite Parking Required 47 spaces
Proposed Parking Number of Spaces
Regular Parking 35 spaces
ADA Parking 3
Compact Parking 9
Total Onsite Parking Proposed 47 spaces
The onsite parking is located as follows:
• Subterranean Parking: 29 parking spaces are located in the proposed subterranean parking level, stacked parking space numbers in the subterranean parking have not been enumerated but would be additive to the minimum surface parking requirements of the LCP.
• Surface Parking: 18 spaces are provided in the at grade surface parking lot adjacent to PCH, which is located in the front yard setback. LIP Section 3.14.5(A)(2) provides that required parking spaces may only be located in interior side and rear setbacks, and no parking space for a commercial use, required or otherwise, shall be located in any required front or street-side setback area, unless regulations provide otherwise. The Project requires VAR No. 20-035 for these parking spaces to remain within the required front yard setback.
Height: The motel would reach a height of two stories or up to 24 feet above finished or natural grade, with an elevator shaft at 23 feet, 8 inches from finished grade at perimeter exterior walls (lowest grade). The remaining 34 percent of the Project Site closest to the top of the slope would be maintained as undeveloped open space. The commercial development standards regulate mass and visual impacts by regulating height and number of stories. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(1), building height shall not be higher than 18 feet above natural or finished grade, whichever results in a lower building height and that in no event shall the number of stories above grade be greater than two. LIP Section 13.27 provides that the Planning Commission may allow heights up to 24 feet for flat roofs. • A 24-foot tall, two-story motel building with a rooftop deck and pool, and subterranean parking is proposed to be notched into the hillside. The motel would reach a height of two stories or up to 24 feet for a flat roof above the lowest grade. • Full site development would be enabled by construction of a retaining wall at the north side of the motel structure along to retain the graded slope and would extend up to 46 feet in height above the surface parking lot (with a total height of 50 feet 116
above the bottom of the subterranean parking level), constructed to secure the slope following excavation. However, most of the retaining is subterranean with a maximum height of 21 feet, 10 inches exposed above grade. Up to 11 feet, 10 inches of the exposed retaining wall projects above the rooftop deck. From a lineof-sight, only a small portion of the wall will be visible above the proposed motel from PCH.
Setbacks: A setback is the distance by which a structure or an addition to a structure must be separated from a parcel line, natural feature, other structure, road, right-of-way, or easement. Building setbacks are intended to provide open areas around structures for visibility, access to and around structures for safety and convenience purposes, access to natural light, ventilation and direct sunlight, separation of incompatible land uses, space for privacy and landscaping, protection of natural resources, and defensible space against fire.
The Project’s proposed setbacks are designed to be compliant with the City’s LCP development standards. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(2)(a)-(c), the required setbacks are as follows:
• Front yard: 20% of the total depth of the lot. The required setback is 47 feet, 5 inches. The proposed building setback is 61 feet and the surface parking is 5 feet. VAR No. 20-035 for surface parking within the required front yard setback.
• Side yard: Cumulatively at least 25% of the total width of the lot but, in no event, shall a single side yard setback be less than 10% of the width of the lot or 5 feet, whichever is greater. The required setbacks of 21 feet, 7 inches and 32 feet, 5 inches are proposed.
• Rear yard: Setbacks shall be at least fifteen percent of the lot depth or fifteen feet whichever is greater. The required setback is 35 feet, 7 inches. The proposed is 104 feet, 1 inch.
Grading and Retaining Wall: Project development requires grading and excavation of approximately 0.77 acre of the existing lower portion of the slope and existing parking lot to accommodate the two-story motel building (with a single level of subterranean parking and surface parking lot). A proposed retaining wall would be installed at the north side of the motel structure to retain the graded slope and would extend up to 46 feet in height above the surface parking lot (and 52.5 feet above the finished floor elevation of the subterranean parking level), constructed to secure the slope following excavation and to provide a 15-foot structural building setback from the slope. The slopes proposed for grading and construction of a retaining wall are steeper than a 3 to 1 slope (Figure 3 – Representative Cross Section).
117
Grading – The Project requires a total of 12,648 cubic yards of grading, with excavation of approximately 11,921 cubic yards of soil. Approximately 61 cubic yards of the excavated soil would be used as fill material onsite, while the remaining material (approximately 11,860 cubic yards) would be exported from the Project Site via roughly 581 to 847 heavy haul trucks, depending on the size of trucks utilized. Of the 12,648 cubic yards of total grading, 11,921 is understructure grading, which is an LIP exempt category from the total allowable. LIP Section 8.3(B) allows for 1,000 cubic yards of non-exempt grading per acre of commercial development, allowing 1,180 cubic yards of non-exempt grading on the Project Site. The total amount of non-exempt grading is 727 cubic yards, which is less than the maximum allowed non-exempt grading amount.
Retaining Wall – Project development requires the construction of a retaining wall at the northern edge of the proposed motel building. The retaining wall would rise to a height of 46 feet above the surface parking lot. However, as the retaining is behind the proposed two-story motel building, the motel building will obstruct most of the retaining wall from a line-of-sight perspective taken from PCH. LIP Section 8.3(C) limits the height of vertical cut up to 12 feet for a retaining wall that is an integral part of the structure. VAR No. 18- 031 is requested for the proposed installation of a retaining wall taller than 12 feet. VAR No. 18-030 is requested for the siting of structures on slopes steeper than a 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical).
Figure 3 – Representative Cross Section
Source: Project Plans
118
Events: The rooftop deck and amenities would be used by motel guests on a daily basis.
Per the MMC, events that would bring in visitors can be held onsite in the motel subject to City approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP).4 Typical events include weddings, B’nai Mitzvahs, parties, corporate events, and other festivities. Pursuant to MMC Section
17.68.010, TUPs are limited to six events per calendar year.
Any increased permanent noise during the operation of the Project would be controlled by the noise regulations contained in MMC Chapter 8.24.
The Project Site is buffered from surrounding residential areas by open space and the incorporation of additional landscaping. The design of the proposed building would also serve as a barrier that reduces noise transmission, as patios would face away from residential areas and the building would contain some vehicle noise within the subterranean parking garage. The Project does not propose amplified sound (music, concerts, etc.).
Site Lighting: In accordance with LIP Sections 4.6.2 and 6.5(G) and MMC Chapter 17.41, the Project would include installation of low intensity, shielded light fixtures, including a color temperature of proposed lighting less than 3,000 Kelvin. Sources of lighting would include interior lighting, exterior wayfinding, and security lighting. Open public areas, such as parking lots, would be lit by both wall-mounted and free-standing path lights. Pathways immediately adjacent to buildings would generally be lit with free standing, downward facing LED light fixtures. Recessed, wall-mounted LED lighting would be used for step lighting and some narrower publicly accessible walkways and to enhance security. Certain areas (i.e., water features and the lobby entrance) would be accented with low wattage, shielded flood light fixtures.
OWTS: The Project Site is located in Phase 3 of the Civic Center Prohibition Area, which is subject to deadlines by which properties must cease discharging from individual septic systems and connect to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility (CCWTF) Project.
The CCWTF Project was recently constructed approximately 1.3 miles west of the Project Site in Winter Canyon off of Civic Center Way. Phase 2 was recently approved and would be under construction shortly, expanding the area being converted from OWTS to public sewer. Wastewater flows from the Project Site would eventually be accommodated by Phase 3 buildout of CCWTF Project estimated to occur in 2028, after which individual septic systems would no longer be allowed.
New Luxury Overnight Accommodations: Pursuant to LIP Section 12.10, the City may approve new luxury overnight visitor accommodations if the Project lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of fifteen percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. Luxury overnight accommodations shall be defined as the point at which the cost of an overnight room exceeds 120 percent of the median 4 Per the MMC, a special event is defined as a significant occurrence or happening which is arranged for a particular occasion or purpose.
119
cost of an overnight room for all overnight accommodations in the City of Malibu. The applicant has expressed that the exemption would apply, since the accommodations are not going to meet the definition of luxury overnight accommodations.
Should the accommodations be classified as luxury accommodations, the lower cost overnight accommodations may be provided, either onsite, offsite, or through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City for deposit into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower cost overnight facilities in the Malibu-Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone area of Los Angeles County or Ventura County. A condition has been added for the property owner to pay the in-lieu fee in compliance with LIP Section 12.10.
ABC License: The applicant will later submit an application to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for a license to sale alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption. ABC will not issue the license until the proposed CUP is approved.
Therefore, a condition of approval has been included stating that the owner would be required to submit a copy of the ABC license to the Planning Department prior to alcohol sales. It is unknown at this time whether a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity will be required prior to the issuance of the ABC license. In case this letter is required, the resolution authorizes the Planning Director the ability to issue it.
ERB Review
Pursuant to LIP Sections 4.4.4(C) and (D), the Project is exempt from ERB review because the Project Site is currently developed with a commercial parking lot and the slope face is sparsely vegetated, supporting primarily non-native grassland, and weedy vegetation. The Project Site is not within a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map.
Nevertheless, on June 27, 2017, ERB reviewed the IS/MND for the Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project, which was the former development project on the Project Site. The Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project included two buildings with a two-story building and subterranean garage in the same location of the Project. However, the exposed portion of the proposed retaining wall is shorter, and the motel building will obstruct more of the wall with vegetation which will help screen it. Therefore, even though the projects are similar, the impacts of the Project would be even less significant compared to the former project. As a result, staff determined that the IS/MND for the Project did not need ERB review.
The ERB recommendations for the Malibu Surfrider Plaza Project are as follows:
1. It is recommended that the landscaping plan be revised to replace the proposed California Sycamore tree at the southwest corner of the subject property with a tree that is less prone to damage the surrounding sidewalk and parking lot such a Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia).
120
2. The potential traffic impact as a result of the Project is a concern.
The owner has chosen to keep the California Sycamore trees in an 18-inch root barrier encircling the root ball to minimize potential root damage to the sidewalk or parking lot area. The owner is concerned that the suggested Toyon trees are smaller trees and their canopy would interfere with parking and small berries would be a nuisance. A condition of approval has been added requiring that the landscaping plan be revised to include a detail of the barrier encircling root balls and that the California Sycamore trees be installed in compliance with the detail.
The potential traffic impact is addressed in the IS/MND in more detail and in the Response to Comments. The Project Site currently holds a parking lot, which supports a limited number of trips to the site under existing conditions. It is disclosed that the Project would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to this existing setting. Under CEQA, due to the Project’s location on the State Highway System, VMT is used for impact analysis purposes, overseen by Caltrans. As a Project with a motel use, it is anticipated to generate approximately 68 average daily trips (ADT), which is well below the threshold of 110 trips per day set by Caltrans that would signify a significant impact. As the increase in trips is not considered significant, the overall traffic conditions would not be significantly impacted from implementation of the Project or on a cumulatively considerable basis.
LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains provisions to carry out the policies of the LUP to which every Project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere.
There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the Project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) OWTS. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section.
The nine remaining LIP chapters contain required findings: 1) Coastal Development Permit; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division.
For the reasons described in this report, including the Project Site, the scope of work and substantial evidence in the record, only the following chapters and associated findings are applicable to the Project: Coastal Development Permit (including the required findings for 121
the VARs and SPR), and Hazards.
5 These chapters are discussed in the LIP Findings
section of this report.
The findings required by MMC Sections 17.66.080 and 17.72.060 for the conditional use permit and variance for construction on slopes are also discussed later.
LIP Conformance Analysis
The Project has been reviewed by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) (Attachment 3 – Department Review Sheets). WD29 provided a Department Review Sheet stating that it will serve water to the property.
The Project, as proposed and conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies, inclusive of the requested VARs, and SPR.
Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The Project is subject to non-beachfront commercial development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.8. Table 6 provides a summary and indicates the Project meets those standards. As shown in Table 6, the Project conforms to the development standards as set forth under LIP Chapter 3. The Project has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies, inclusive of the requested VARs, and SPR.
Table 6 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/ Required Proposed Comments SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard (20%) 47 ft, 5 in 69 ft, 2 in Complies
Parking 47 ft. 5 in 5 ft VAR No. 20-035
Rear Yard (5 ft or 15%) 35 ft, 7 in 104 ft, 1 in Complies Side Yard (10%) 21 ft, 7 in 21 ft, 7 in Complies
Side Yards (25%) 54 ft 54 ft Complies
PARKING SPACES 476 47
Standard 35 35 Complies
Compact 9 9
5 The ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, Public Access, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Land Divisions and Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection findings are neither applicable nor required for the Project. 6 As stated in the Parking and Access section above, the Project includes 23 spaces required for the proposed motel use and 23 parking spaces for the adjacent Aviation Nation Site. 122
Table 6 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/ Required Proposed Comments ADA Accessible 4 4
FAR (15%) 7,703 7,693 Complies
HEIGHT (ft.) 18 24 SPR No. 18-025
Construction on Slopes 3:1 or flatter Steeper than 3:1 VAR No. 18-030 LANDSCAPING (40%) (sq. ft.) 20,541 29,173
Open Space (25%) (sq. ft.) 12,838 27,652 Complies 7
Total 33,379 56,825
FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES (ft.)
Walls or Fences (within front
yard)
3.5 (solid)
6 (view permeable)
N/A Complies
Retaining Walls 12 (integral part of a
building)
21 ft, 10 in8 VAR No. 18-031
Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading. LIP Section 8.3(B) allows for 1,000 cubic yards of non-exempt grading per acre of commercial development, allowing 1,180 cubic yards of non-exempt grading on the Project Site. Table 7 includes the grading quantities proposed for the Project.
Table 7 – LCP Grading Conformance
Exempt** NonR&R* Understructure Safety** Exempt Remedial Total Cut 0 11,921 0 333 0 12,254
Fill 0 0 0 394 0 394
Total 0 11,951 0 727 0 12,648
Import 0 0 0 61 0 0
Export 0 11,921 0 0 0 11,860
All quantities listed in cubic yards.
*R&R= Removal and Recompaction
**Exempt grading includes all R&R, understructure and safety grading. ***Safety grading is the incremental grading required for Fire Department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads, and turnarounds and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the LACFD).
As described in Table 7, the Project requires a total of 11,860 cubic yards of grading. Of the 11,860 cubic yards of total grading, 11,921 cubic yards is understructure grading, which is an LIP exempt category from the total allowable. The total amount of non-exempt 7 Pursuant to LIP Section 3.8(A)(5)(b), open space areas may include courtyards, patios, natural open space and additional landscaping.
8 The overall height of the wall is 50 feet above the finished floor of the subterranean garage. Above the subterranean garage, the same wall is covered with soil and the remaining 21 feet, 10 inches of wall is then exposed above grade.
123
grading is 727 cubic yards, which is less than the total allowable non-exempt grading by 453 cubic yards.
Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. The Project is proposed on a site that was likely on or immediately adjacent to a beach prior to development and was subject to coastal processes (e.g., wave action, beach scour), and has experienced substantial erosion from the northern slope into the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site has been previously disturbed during construction of PCH and the existing parking lot and past grading on the hillside to maintain a stable slope. The Project’s location in an area that was likely subject to coastal processes and past disturbance from development limits the potential for encountering subsurface cultural resources. No archaeological resources are known to exist on the Project Site or immediate vicinity. In addition, the steep slope is unlikely to support cultural remains both due to its steepness and past disturbance for slope stabilization.
Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.
Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the Project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. A standard condition of approval for the Project requires that prior to the issuance of any development permit, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating construction-phase Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Best Management Practices, a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), and a Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) must be approved by the City Public Works Department. With the implementation of these conditions, the Project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.
Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The Project includes a new OWTS in the western and southern portions of the Project Site for use until the parcel is connected to improvements anticipated by Phase 3 of the CCWTF Project. The entire septic system would be contained within the Project Site.
124
The Project’s wastewater system requires compliance with all applicable standards and issuance of associated local and State operating permits. Specifically, the septic system would be designed to accommodate the Project’s estimated demand generated by the motel’s 20 rooms, 229 fixture units, and associated communal areas for the motel’s kitchen, employee areas, and communal uses. The associated estimated wastewater discharge rate for the proposed motel uses is an average of 1,700 gpd, and includes a 100 percent dispersal area expansion. The proposed OWTS would comprise of a series of subterranean treatment tanks, a secondary treatment (disinfection) system with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, equalization tank, a leach field and dispersal area beneath the proposed surface parking lot, and the system designed to nitrify wastewater to meet California Ocean Plan standards.
The proposed OWTS was reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator and it was determined to meet the minimum requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code, the MMC, and the LCP. In addition, the LARWQCB would review the proposed development under a waste discharge requirements permit (WDR) for the proposed system. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution, which require continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of onsite facilities. The subject system will meet all applicable requirements, and operating permits will be required.
LIP Findings
A. Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
LIP Section 13.9 requires that the following four findings be made for all coastal development permits.
Finding 1. That the Project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.
The Project is located in the CV-1 zoning district, an area designated for rural commercial uses. The proposed motel is a conditionally permitted use in the CV land use designation and CV-1 zoning district in which the Project Site is located. The proposed motel use complies with the intent of the zoning provisions of the MMC and the LCP.
The Project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the Project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the MMC and the LCP, inclusive of the VARs and SPR.
125
Finding 2. If the Project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the Project is in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).
The Project is not located between the first public road and the sea. Therefore, this finding does not apply.
Finding 3. The Project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
An IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. More specifically, the CEQA Guidelines require that a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project be described, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
The discussion of alternatives, however, need not be exhaustive, but rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the Project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources. Based on LCP conformance review, the Project as proposed will not result in any significant adverse impacts. Nevertheless, the following alternatives were considered.
1. Reduced Project. The project includes replacement of a 40-space existing parking lot with a 24-foot tall, two-story motel building fronting PCH with 20 lodging rooms, a rooftop deck and pool, and subterranean parking. The proposed development would alter the visual character of the Project Site from a surface parking lot with no landscaping and a lightly vegetated hillside to that of a contemporary, landscaped frontage and motel building with architectural design features intended to comply with the LCP and MMC, as well as with all relevant City standard conditions of approval listed above.
A smaller or alternative project could be proposed on the subject parcel. However, the proposed development area conforms with the commercial development standards, regarding density and intensity of the use, including FAR, open space and landscaping requirements, and required building setbacks. The applicant provided photo simulations to show the design and scale of the proposed development from three vantage points (Attachment 4). Due to the presence of a steep slope that occupies the northern 70 percent of the Project Site, there are no feasible alternative site locations for the proposed development. Siting the development on the most disturbed portion of the property reduces environmental impacts due to landform alteration.
The Project lies within a developed commercial area with existing development bordering the site. The proposed motel would be similar in size, bulk and scale to existing structures to the east and west and would be designed to step back into the hillside to the north. 126