Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, May 13, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

71224529v1

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, datestamped May 18, 2020. 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.

Issue: Some modifications were made to the plans, and submitted to the City after May 18, 2020.

If the City considers these changes as being in “substantial compliance” with the May 18, 2020 plans, there is no problem. If these are not considered to be in “substantial compliance”, the additional dates of the modified plans should be included.

Solution #1: No change, if City sees the changes as being in “substantial compliance.” Solution #2: If the revised plans are not considered to be in “substantial compliance”, the provision should be modified to read: “…plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped May 18, 2020 and March 10, 2023…”

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

Issue: Night lighting is contemplated for the pool, as set forth in the plans.

Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “Except for pool and deck lighting that must be compatible with the Dark Sky Ordinance, night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.”

32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

Issue: These hours are too restrictive, and do not allow alcohol to be served for brunch, and at the bar in the late evenings.

Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to Midnight, Sunday through Wednesday Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Thursday through Saturday, and long weekends and holidays.”
1015
City of Malibu
April 12, 2023

Page 3 ends

71224529v1

Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas. Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted and is at page 383-400 of the staff report attachments packet.

Also, the reference to Condition No. 38 is wrong (the condition is about signage), and applicant does not know what was intended by that reference.

Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No live entertainment or amplified sound 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. 38 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. Low-level ambient music is permitted in the common areas.”

43. None of the parking spaces may be used as public parking.

Issue: There is no reason why the Motel should not be permitted to open the parking for public use. This would be a benefit to the community on days where the motel is not at full capacity and additional spaces are available. Also, the Applicant intends to invest in lifts for the underground parking lot, but that only makes sense if the parking can be made available to the public.

Solution: Delete this condition entirely.

44. No more than six employees can be at the site at any one shift.

Issue: There is no reason to restrict the number of employees. Needs of the Motel may change over time, and the Applicant wants to provide a pleasant experience and good service. If employee numbers are to be restricted, they should be restricted to 8 employees at any one time, as there is one additional parking space available on-site beyond the code requirements.

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely (preferred).

Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No more than six eight employees can be at the site at any one shift.”
1016
City of Malibu
April 12, 2023

Page 4 ends

71224529v1

Issue: This should be clarified to include a reference to valet parking.

Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “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 parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property. Valet services and underground lift parking can be utilized to facilitate additional parking at the site.

The additional spaces created through the valet and lift parking services, upon approval by the Planning Director, shall be deemed to count towards the total number of parking spaces for the Project.”

52. The conditional use permit may be modified by the City without the consent of the property owner or operator if the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance.

Issue: This violates due process, and contradicts the Malibu Municipal Code’s procedures regarding permit modification and permit revocation. It also contradicts Conditions of Approval numbers 49 and 55, which are consistent with the Malibu Municipal Code.

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.

Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “The conditional use permit may be modified by the City without the consent of the property owner or operator, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Malibu Municipal Code, and Conditions of Approval numbers 49 and 55, if the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance.” 121. Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Amplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses. 1017
City of Malibu
April 12, 2023

Page 5 ends

71224529v1
Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas. Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted and is at page 383-400 of the staff report attachments packet.

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.

Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Except low level ambient music, which is expressly permitted in the common areas, including the outdoor pool area, Aamplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that any other amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses.” Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please do not hesitate to reach out to discuss any of these items in further detail. Of course, we will also be present to answer questions at the April 17, 2023 hearing.

Sincerely,
SEENA M. SAMIMI of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
CC:

Trevor Rusin, Assistant City Attorney
Steve McClary, City Manager
1018
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: April 17, 2023 hearing - Malibu Inn Motel - Item 5b [JMBM-LA.82420.0001] Attachments: Malibu Inn Motel - Letter to Planning Commission re COAs(71224529.1).pdf From: Seena Samimi
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 6:30 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Steven Hakim Subject: April 17, 2023 hearing ‐ Malibu Inn Motel ‐ Item 5b [JMBM‐LA.82420.0001] Dear Ms. Evans,
We represent Surfrider Plaza LLC, the applicant for the Malibu Inn Motel Project ("Project"), in connection with its planning and land use issues. Please see that attached letter regarding the Conditions of Approval for the project.

While the applicant has no issues with the vast majority of the Conditions of Approval, there are some that are not compatible with the proposed Project, and the Applicant is requesting modification or removal of those conditions. We originally sent the attached letter to staff to see which items can be taken care of in advance of the hearing, and which items would need to be heard by the Planning Commission. Because we are now approaching the hearing date, and it is unclear whether any of these items can be resolved before the hearing, we are now sharing the letter with the Commissioners, so that they will have full knowledge of the Applicant’s requests (relating the Conditions of Approval) before the hearing itself.

Please confirm receipt of the attached letter, and its distribution to the Planning Commissioners.

Best,
ss
Seena Max Samimi | Attorney at Law
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
This e‐mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney‐client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e‐mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com 1019
71224529v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Seena Max Samimi
April 12, 2023

VIA EMAIL
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Malibu Inn Motel – Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Hearing for April 17, 2023, Item 5.B Dear Mr. Mollica and Mr. Fernandez:

We represent Surfrider Plaza LLC, the applicant for the Malibu Inn Motel Project ("Project"), in connection with its planning and land use issues.We have reviewed the staff report and resolution for Item 5.B for the April 17, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, and are grateful for the City’s thorough analysis of the pertinent issues.

Staff has recommended 122 Conditions of Approval for the project, and the applicant has no issues with the vast majority of them. However, there are some Conditions of Approval that are not compatible with the proposed Project, and the applicant is requesting modification or removal of those conditions. We wanted to send you this list as early as possible to see which items can be taken care of in advance of the hearing by staff, and which items would need to be heard by the Planning Commission itself. After we collaborate regarding the below Conditions of Approval, we would be happy to send a final list of outstanding items (the ones that we were unable to resolve in advance) to the Planning Commissioners, or we could even use this same letter to distribute the Planning Commissioners, but direct their focus to only those last remaining Conditions of Approval.

Below, please find a list of each of the problematic Conditions of Approval, in italics, followed by the applicant’s explanation for why it is problematic, and recommendation for how to address it (with proposed deletions stricken, and additions shown in bold underlined italics):
1020
City of Malibu
April 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

71224529v1

Issue: Some modifications were made to the plans, and submitted to the City after May 18, 2020.

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

Issue: Night lighting is contemplated for the pool, as set forth in the plans.

32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

Issue: These hours are too restrictive, and do not allow alcohol to be served for brunch, and at the bar in the late evenings.

Page 3 ends

71224529v1

Also, the reference to Condition No. 38 is wrong (the condition is about signage), and applicant does not know what was intended by that reference.

43. None of the parking spaces may be used as public parking.

Solution: Delete this condition entirely.

44. No more than six employees can be at the site at any one shift.

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely (preferred).

Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No more than six eight employees can be at the site at any one shift.”
1022
City of Malibu
April 12, 2023

Page 4 ends

71224529v1

Issue: This should be clarified to include a reference to valet parking.

52. The conditional use permit may be modified by the City without the consent of the property owner or operator if the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance.

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.

Page 5 ends

Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.

Sincerely,
SEENA M. SAMIMI of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
CC:

Trevor Rusin, Assistant City Attorney
Steve McClary, City Manager
1024
1025
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond >
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Rebecca Evans; John Mazza; Kraig Hill; Planning Commission; Richard Mollica Cc: Patt Healy;
Subject: Malibu on The Rocks same day and time as Malibu inn motel hearing Is it possible to change the hearing date and Ɵme to one that doesn’t conflict with this important event? Thx! Jo Drummond
hƩps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=hƩps%3a%2f%2fmalibuontherocks.com%2f&c=E,1,_GubDYSb2AvVhqKcwtM94w‐ xyS7Ygrn‐8SX24ZCyd6163ohsKFkqsV6Nwn6lxyn_org6fpOkoo2D8XE2GxJ3BRVPltg‐YbGVMapAD4Pxnjp5FXbh&typo=1 1026
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond >
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 4:23 PM
To: Planning Commission; Richard Mollica; Kraig Hill; John Mazza Cc: Rebecca Evans; Patt Healy; ; Christopher Cunningham; Hak Wong; Dorina schiro
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel is on a bluff and therefore CANNOT be constructed upon as per 10.4 F of the LIP Attention Honorable Planning Commission and Richard Mollica… I have recently recalled that a project at 6400 Merritt Dr. with the PCH separating it and overlooking the ocean which is the same as the Malibu Inn motel yet the proposed motel/hotel is even closer to the ocean had to abide by Chapter 10 in the LIP.

See p 2 of its staff report attached…
“At the southern edge of the property, a bluff with slopes of 1:1 or greater descends approximately 60 feet toward Pacific Coast Highway. The bluff overlooks Zuma County Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the south and the Santa Monica Mountains to the north. The proposed project complies with the required bluff setback of the LCP and MMC by providing a 50‐foot setback from the top of bluff.“
And on p 10 “Finding 1. The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The new primary dwelling and all proposed accessory buildings and structures will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts as they will not exceed the maximum allowed height of 18 feet on a non‐beachfront lot. Furthermore, the proposed development will be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the bluff fronting the scenic highway, reducing the development’s presence from this scenic resource.”
P 14 “G. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10) LIP Section 10.3 requires written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing coastal resources, including public access and shoreline sand supply, that must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site along the shoreline or a coastal bluff where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon these resources. The subject parcel is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway, and while the subject parcel does include a bluff along its southerly property line, based on a determined factor of safety greater than 1.5 and evidence contained in the project’s geotechnical report, City geotechnical staff have approved a reduced bluff setback of 50 feet inland from the top of the bluff. The project does not have the potential to result in potentially significant adverse impacts on coastal resources, such as shoreline and/or bluff resources. Therefore, in accordance with LIP Section 10.3, the following shoreline and bluff development findings are made as follows:

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

The subject parcel is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway and is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, the proposed project will not have adverse impacts to public shoreline access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

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

The subject parcel is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway and is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have adverse impacts to public shoreline access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.
1027
1028
1029

INHERENT PROBLEM IN MALIBU
- Severe Lack of Motel/Hotel Accommodations
- Airbnb Gone Rampant in the City
1030

SOLUTION
We are proposing a 20 room
Motel
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035

CRITERIA TO BUILD MOTEL IN MALIBU
• ZONED FOR MOTEL (CV-1 ZONE)
• Meet the code for Parking
• Meet the FAR guidelines
• Approval from the RWQCB
• Support from Coastal Commission
• Meets Height Requirement
• Findings to Support Limited Variances
• In Conformance with LCP, MMC and Malibu General Plan
• Fits Nicely in the surrounding area
1036

POSITIVES MOTEL BRINGS TO MALIBU
• Will provide an affordable option for friends and families of locals to stay • Will provide approx. $500,000 to $1,000,000 in additional TOT revenue to the city
• Will help curb the Airbnb problem that has plagued the city • Decrease traffic and congestion on PCH
• Significant upgrade to fire flow and water meter in the neighborhood:
$319,520 payment to Water District
• There will be less vagrants and trash in the current parking lot • Will be beautifying the neighborhood across from the iconic pier • Will employ locals
• Help the surrounding businesses
1037
1038
Community feedback or observations
Project is a hotel not a motel
• FALSE
Response
• The project does not have any
meetings rooms or spa/massage
rooms
• The Motel is only open to Motel
guests
• Prep Kitchen is only to service
Motel guests
• Separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space
conveniently located on the lot or
parcel of land
1039
Community feedback or observations
Doesn’t Have Approval from
Waterboard
• FALSE
Response
• We have verified again that this
project is on the table 4-zz list
and within the ADG flow
requested from RWQCB
• Dr. Kang from Waterboard has
blessed the project in writing
and in meetings with Staff
• Conformance Review complete
1040
1041
1042
1043
Community feedback or observations
Project will increase traffic on PCH
• FALSE
Response
• Initial Study/MND, Traffic Study,
and Public Works all agree there is
no increased traffic
• Parking will only be for Motel
guests as opposed to uncontrolled
public parking lot
• We will be adding another point of
ingress and egress
• Circulation is drastically improved
coming in and out of new project
1044
1045
1046
1047
Community feedback or observations
Within 24
Ft Height
1048
Community feedback or observations
• Findings to Support Limited Variances
1049
1050
Discussion Regarding Pool
From Staff Report
“The permitted chart in the LIP indicates that swimming pools for recreational purposes are conditionally permitted only if available to the general public. The Tide Pool pool for the Casa Motel and Sea View Hotel were approved to have swimming pools because it was previously determined that hotel/motel-related
swimming pools are open to guests which consist of the public.

The pool is also incidental to the motel and not its own separate land use.”
Other Motels/Hotels with Pools
June Motel
M Motel
Sea View Hotel
Nobu Hotel
1051
Conditions Requested To Amend/Modify
All of the modifications requested are
only to put us at the same competitive
advantage that other motels and hotels
currently enjoy.
1052
Conditions Requested To Amend/Modify
Condition 32: Expand Hours of Liquor Operation to Match Sea View Hotel Requesting 7 am – Midnight Sunday - Wed
7 am – 2 am Thursday – Saturday and long weekends and holidays.

Condition 33 and 121: Low Level Ambient Music
Requesting low level ambient music in common areas, not plainly audible within 5 feet of any residential dwelling
Condition 43 and 51: Public Parking and Approved Valet/Lifts Requesting to be able to provide parking to the public when available. Planning director to count lift and valet spaces if they are approved
Condition 44: Number of Employees
Requesting to remove this restriction (No Other Establishments Have This Restriction). Project meets the code for parking.
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
Malibu Code 3.14.3: One space for each keyed room, plus One space for the average per shift number of employees.
4 Shifts Total of 6 hours
• Night Manager Shift - 10 pm - 4 am (1 person for 6 hours) • Morning Manager Shift 4 am - 10 am (1 person for 6
hours)
• Early Day Shift 10 am - 4 pm (6 people for 6 hours)
• Afternoon Shift 4 pm -10 pm (4 people for 6 hours)
This calculates to exactly an average of 3 (12 divided by 4).

One Additional Parking Space - we could even add two
additional employees for the night manager shift (8 people) and afternoon shift (6 people) and this would result in an exact average of 4 (16 divided by 4).

Parking Calculation for CV1 Motel
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065

32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

Issue: These hours are too restrictive, and do not allow alcohol to be served for brunch, and at the bar in the late evenings.

33. No live entertainment or amplified sound 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. 38 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. •• Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas. Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted for the neighboring Aviator Nation site, and is at page 774-788 of the staff report packet. Also, the reference to Condition No. 38 is wrong (the condition is about signage), and the intended referral was likely Condition No. 35 (about noise).
•• Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No live entertainment or amplified sound 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. 38 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. Low-level ambient music is permitted in the common areas.”
1067

43. None of the parking spaces may be used as public parking.

Issue: There is no reason why the Motel should not be
permitted to open the parking for public use. This would be a benefit to the community on days where the motel is not at full capacity and additional spaces are available. Also, the Applicant intends to invest in lifts for the underground parking lot, but that only makes sense if the parking can be made available to the public.

Solution: Delete this condition entirely.
1068

44. No more than six employees can be at the site at any one shift.
•• Issue: There is no reason to restrict the number of employees.

We meet the code for parking, and are the only establishment in Malibu that has this condition. Needs of the Motel may change over time, and the Applicant wants to provide a pleasant experience and good service. If employee numbers are to be restricted, they should be restricted to 8 employees at any one time, as there is one additional parking space available on-site beyond the code requirements.
•• Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely (preferred). •• Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No more than six eight employees can be at the site at any one shift.”
1069

In the case that amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation.

The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses.
•• Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas.

Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted for the neighboring Aviator Nation site, and is at paged 774-788 of the staff report packet. Based on that analysis, that site was approved to have low level ambient music until 10:00 p.m. daily. The impacts from low level ambient music will be similar to the Aviator Nation property, and less impactful than the baseline street noise from PCH.
•• Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.
• Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “Prohibition of Amplified Sound.

Except for low level ambient music, which is expressly permitted in the common areas, including the outdoor pool area (and which shall not be plainly audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling), Aamplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that any other amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses.”
1071
Community feedback or observations
Surfrider Motel Parking Agreement
• There is NO agreement between
us and Surfrider motel
Response
• Trying to be good neighbor, the
agreement stated only if and
when available on MTM basis
• There has not been an
agreement for over a year now
• Surfrider has been able to
accommodate all their cars self
sufficiently
1072
1073
1074
1 Planning Commission
From: Alina Korsunsky < >
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 2:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: May 31 - Special Meeting
Hi,
My name is Alina Korsunska. I have watched the previous hearings and read the staff report and am in support of this project. As someone who lives close by, I love what the developer is bringing to this community. We need more hotel and motel rooms and this is exactly what the coastal commission keeps asking for. I also read the coastal commissions letter which also shows their support for the project. I see that the property is zoned for this, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t approve it. I would love to have a place for visitors to be able to stay when they come to visit, and I think everyone is tired of having their neighbors house filled with strangers and new airbnb guests every week. Let’s approve this project for its merits. They are staying within the guidelines of the FAR and they should be commended after putting in so much time on a winning project for the City.

Thank you,
Alina Korsunska
1075
1 Planning Commission
From: Bill Sampson >
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 12:32 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Steve McClary; Trevor Rusin
Subject: Planning commission meeting 5/31/2023, item 1B, Malibu Inn Motel Please incorporate the following remarks in the public record concerning the abovecaptioned item.

Before the commission proceeds on the merits on this item I would respectfully suggest that commissioners Peak and Smith recuse themselves from it due to the reasonable foreseeability that the decision will have a material financial effect on each of them given their private business roles as licensed contractors. ANY development in our city raises the reasonably forseeable conclusion that such development presents such a conflict for any contractor given the small pool of contractors within our city.

Contractors in the building trades such as Commissioners Smith and Peak, have exactly the sort of real and/or potential conflict that requires recusal from discussing and voting on all development applications (including the Malibu Motel project), under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (encoded as California Code of Regulations Section 18701 et seq, and California Government Code Section 87100 et seq.)
The code’s disqualification provisions apply to all development-related contractors, even architects.

There is no requirement of a promise of future work, or a quid pro quo, for there to be a conflict of interest – simply a reasonably foreseeable possibility that the public official (in this instance Peak and Smith) would have a material financial interest in the project. Income to either or both of these officials as potential bidders as contractors on this particular project is, without doubt, reasonably foreseeable.

Both commissioners should seriously consider resignation rather than recusing themselves (as they should) from the bulk of the commission's business. Such would avoid even an appearance of conflict - a most important consideration for any person invoking the public trust.

A risk to everyone arises under City’s own Conflict of Interest Code, “a decision in relation to which a violation of the disqualification provisions of this code or of Section 87100 or 87450 has occurred may be set aside as void pursuant to Section 91003.” Thus the outcome of this hearing, however it may go, may be held to be invalid - a result presumably desired by no one.

It would be disastrous for all of us taxpayers if the City itself were held liable for damages arising out of any decision that has been tainted by the participation of a disqualified person. This is a classic example of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.

For the layperson, these requirements are clearly explained in the League of California Cities’ Guide for Local Agency Counsel: Providing Conflict of Interest Advice (2016).

Respectfully,
1076
2 Bill Sampson
1077
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel - Virtual Planning Commission Hearing May 31 - 6:30p From: Charlotte Frieze
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Skylar Peak <[email protected]>; Dennis Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel ‐ Virtual Planning Commission Hearing May 31 ‐ 6:30p Attached please find MOSA's comments for your consideration on the proposed Malibu Inn Motel.

Thank you very much,
Charlotte
‐‐
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
1078
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE 1
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265 April 17, 2023
Re: Malibu Inn Motel
Virtual Hearing-May 31, 20023 Via Email
Commissioners:

Let’s start with ZONING.

ZONING:

CV-1 District
“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.” A change to CV-2 is required by City Council as this is NOT A MOTEL. As defined by the LCP, this is actually a HOTEL as it will be offering food, bar service and is designed to include a swimming pool.

In addition, it will host weddings and other events which are not allowed in motels.

Parking for a MOTEL is defined as adjacent to the room. Required parking for a HOTEL is 2 spaces per room. This plan does not include enough parking.

It is still not clear how this project benefits the residents of Malibu. Nor how it is designed to be consistent with the rural character and natural environment. A project that requires this number of variances is not one that is respectful of Malibu’s residents, its rural character and natural environmental setting and its Malibu Building Codes.

It was shocking to read Staff’s recommendations for a project that is so obviously in denial of the Malibu Vision and Mission Statement as well as Malibu’s rules and regulations.

This Malibu Inn Motel project is proposed for the heart of Malibu. It would benefit the owners of the motel and, presumably, the guests at the Malibu Beach Inn not the residents of Malibu.

The project would have a negative impact on the lives of Malibu residents, local businesses and would deter tourists who bring dollars to the Malibu economy to benefit a relatively few motel guests. The construction traffic alone would make it difficult to reach the Civic Center and Western Malibu from the East.

HEIGHT:
1079
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE 2
The super-sized height is the beginning of a domino effect of serious issues.

If this project were only 24ft high, there would be no need for the 52.5 ft retaining wall.

There would be no need to destroy the bluff.

There would be no need for the extensive grading and
hauling of 581 TO 847 HEAVY TRUCK LOADS of dirt.

The plans base their height calculations on their claim that the parking lot is subterranean. It is not. EL 20 is just about the elevation of the southernmost point of the outdoor parking lot that is slightly above the elevation of PCH as seen on the Land Removal Area section. 24ft is the maximum allowed with a flat roof. This appears to be closer to 45 ft which is not allowed. This should be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top of the elevator shaft.

As it is, the structure so substantially alters the existing grade it is necessary to build retaining walls along the east and west sides of the property as well as into the Coastal Bluff.

THE HEIGHT OF THE NORTH RETAINING WALL
The height of the northern retaining wall reveals a flagrant disregard for Malibu, the site’s neighbors and its environment. Not only does building this retaining wall require excessive cut into the natural, coastal bluff but at 52.5 FT it also brazenly ignores Malibu’s 12 ft retaining wall maximum height.

This project should be denied on this gross violation of building code alone.

This project shamelessly ignores the two-story regulations. In addition to the ground floor lobby and valet parking garage, there are first floor rooms, second floor rooms and a roof deck pool, bar, and spa.

Most importantly this project cuts into the Coastal Bluff and is out of scale with the mostly single-story commercial structures. The project ignores Malibu’s height regulations.

Excessive number of stories: Grounds for Denial
TRAFFIC:

This is an accident-prone area due to myriad illegal turns and jay walking.

Western Malibu would in effect be cut off from Eastern Malibu during the years of construction. This is not only an inconvenience but a danger to peoples’ lives.

Emergency vehicles would be delayed. Every minute counts for a heart attack or stroke patient.
1080
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE 3
Anyone who experienced the enormous traffic jam during the Woolsey Fire would be terrified of the potential delays when trying to evacuate. I remember all too well not being able to get onto PCH and watching my neighborhood burn from Zuma Beach.

The project needs to be studied in conjunction with the neighboring businesses including but not limited to: Seaview Hotel, Malibu Beach Inn, Nobo, Soho House, Ryokan, Surfrider Motel, Aviator Nation and the businesses on the Malibu Pier.

As it is the PCH heavy traffic and parking lines impacts all these properties. Gridlock is a common occurrence. Most importantly residents are now reluctant to drive on the weekends and their friends refuse to come visit during the summer months.

GRADING:

Anyone driving along PCH during the past 4 months of rain has seen the erosion caused by disturbing the coastal bluff. The mudslides caused enormous delays.

Any alteration of this coastal bluff would cause slope instability.

Just in the past year the bluff adjacent to The Case has eroded onto Malibu Road.

HAULING:

EXCESSIVE GRADING REQUIRES THE UNDERTAKING OF MASSIVE HAULING,

HUGE NOISY MACHINERY, GIGANTIC DELIVERY VEHICLES TO DELIVER THE STEEL INFRASTRUCURE, CRANES AND WORKERS’ VEHICLES.
(Let’s not forget that just within the past weeks a crane overturned on Las Flores and a supply truck overturned on PCH right next to the Zumirez Fire Station.) This project proposes digging and exporting 11,860 Cubic Yards of dirt.

REQUIRING 581 TO 847 HEAVY TRUCK LOADS IN THE CENTER OF TOWN 1081
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE 4
These are the types of trucks that might be required to construct this project:
1082
MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE 5
Can you imagine these in the heart of Malibu across from the historic Malibu Pier? Can you imagine how many movie or TV deals could be lost? 581 TO 847 HEAVY TRUCK LOADS should be a good reason to DENY this project.

NOISE

IF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THE NOISE CREATED BY THE POST-WOOLSEY FIRE RECONSTRUCTION in your neighborhood, THE NOISE DISTURBANCE from this project would be magnified exponentially. AND it is IN THE CENTER OF TOWN.

EIR
The fact that this project departs significantly from code requirements makes an EIR necessary.

Alternatives including “no project” or a smaller commercial project that doesn’t require these significant, and costly, variances should be considered.

PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT
By recommending variances for this unconscionable, non-complying project, the City is intentionally undoing the codes that were put in place to protect Malibu’s environmentally sensitive habitat, small town ambiance and rural character.

The beautiful setting with majestic mountains, coastal bluffs and ocean views is why people come to Malibu. This is why we live here.

Is this non-complying Malibu Inn Motel project worth setting a precedent that could change Malibu forever?
Thank you,
Charlotte M. Frieze
Founding Member
1083
1084
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond >
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:49 PM
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Kraig Hill
Cc: R N; Patt Healy; Rebecca Evans; Janet Friesen; Bill Sampson; Georgia Goldfarb; Gerhardt & Rosemarie Ihde; Colin Drummond; Walter Zelman; Dorina schiro; Peggy Hall Kaplan; richard lawrence; Lester Tobias; Linda Rivera; ; Marilou Hamill;
Lucile Keller; Ann Doneen; Dru Jacobson
Subject: Malibu inn motel - virtual planning commission hearing May 31 - 6:30p Attachments: Address_ 22959 PACIFIC COAST HWY APN_ 4452-019-005 22959 Doc Type (ESD)_ GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Rep__ 6_20_2018 Tract #_ - - 8_21_2018 Case #_.pdf Honorable Chair Smith and Planning Commission,
This rushed seemingly pushed through planning project with much public opposition cannot move forward due to the MANY code violations:

1. It is the INCORRECT ZONING ‐ the motel is NOT a motel as defined in the LCP but a HOTEL as it will be offering not only food but bar service and a swimming pool with a rooftop bar. Plus it will host weddings and other special events for the public which are not allowed in motels, only hotels. It also has underground parking that must be accessed by stairs or elevator and not parking adjacent to the rooms which is a requirement of a motel. It must first go through a zoning change to CV‐2 from CV‐1 at the city council before being able to be approved. Hotels also require 2 parking spaces per room and this project as designed can never meet this requirement. The commercial retail plaza suddenly changing to a hotel almost 10 years later should have enacted a NEW application which would automatically be denied due to the water ban.

2. It is digging almost an acre into a natural coastal bluff ‐The ND states: ‘’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 bluff into the project site (p 429 of staff report).’’ This description meets the definition of a Coastal Bluff. 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. The LCP CLEARLY states that no coastal bluff can be excavated ‐ “No permanent structures shall be permitted on a bluff face”. The Coastal Commission would NEVER allow this project to move forward. The California Coastal Act (California Public Resource Code Sections 30000 et seq.) regulates coastal development in California. Section 30253 states, in part, that: New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. According to Mark Johnsson, staff geologist for the California Coastal Commission, “This law requires that new development be sited in such a way that it will not be subject to erosion or stability hazard over the course of its design life. Further, the last clause requires the finding that no seawall, revetment, jetty…retaining wall…will be needed to protect the development over the course of its design life.”

3. The MASSIVE 20,000,000 lbs of grading is also not ALL UNDER STRUCTURE as the hillside will be encasing the back of the hotel and parking garage. So it should NOT be exempt. And it is supposed to be SET BACK from the slope without all this grading. I live in Big Rock where the cutting of our slope caused our landslide and PCH to be closed for months ‐ please use common sense here to protect your residents. 1085
2 4. The Aviator Nation’s 100% septic expansion area is the whole area where the Malibu Inn Motel would put their new septic system ‐ if this area needs to be changed there must be a hearing first for Aviator Nation’s OWTS design change.

The applicant can’t on a whim just move the expansion field over for his convenience without going through the proper permitting channels.

5. The proposed septic system is 4 TIMES the capacity than the original retail project submitted in 2009 and the large holding tank will not be able to hold back this much larger amount of effluent after a few days. Rain, the already high groundwater level at the site and sea level rise will certainly cause its failure and pollution of our ocean and beaches which is why there is a water ban in the area and risks the city once again violating The Clean Water Act. According to Heal The Bay, Surfrider Beach is already the fourth most polluted beach in California. P 7 of the attached geotechnical report by Geoconcepts states that the groundwater level is high but it has not been ever properly studied. It needs up to date recent studies of levels especially with constant sea rise which can infiltrate the septic system and cause it to overflow and contaminate. All reports were completed 8‐11 years ago and groundwater has certainly risen since then. If the septic encroaches into the groundwater it will pollute the nearby ocean (see attached from EPA). In Yaroslaski’s Feb 2016 septic report he states clearly on p 2, “The geologic consultant must provide a technical rationale to support his opinion as to what is the depth/elevation of seasonal high groundwater.” We have not received this information except that it is high, thus the septic can and will pollute the groundwater. There was also no geotechnical review for the recently updated septic plan.

6. There is NOT enough parking for events both at adjacent Aviator Nation (340 person events) plus the hotel (12‐20 employees during peak times plus 40 guests plus guests for wedding events, etc.). The transportation study dated April 29, 2020 on p 79 states that the Malibu inn/aviator nation venue requires 68 parking spots at peak evening hours ‐ there will be only 23 spots available. And valet parking cannot be allowed to park over 300 ft away as the Mani brothers project was denied for the same reason. 18 of the hotel spots are in the front yard setback which will also hinder evacuation. They will also be demolishing one of Aviator Nation’s marquee signs on top of already taking away their parking spots ‐ a sure sign of more sad things to come for this historical landmark in the future!

7. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands. Everyone parks here for the public pier, beach, etc. This precious public parking will be lost and push more cars to search along PCH and is another violation of the LCP. Finding 10 on p 436 of the staff report is inaccurate ‐ see photo of existing lot below.

8. In an emergency it will be difficult to maneuver out of the squeezed in parking lot configured worse than Nobu/Soho House where no emergency vehicles could enter during a fire last year because of the evacuation of all the cars, etc (see attached). There are already dozens of illegal u turns and multiple accidents in front of these two restaurants and hotel ‐ multiply that by at least a dozen near the pier, aviator nation, this motel and all the other hotels, businesses etc. at the busiest intersection in town and it will be a disaster and a traffic and safety nightmare. Stacked parking during a power outage will also strand patrons and would be tedious and potentially deadly during an evacuation. An EIR needs to be completed to evaluate the traffic and safety risks among all the other significant impacts caused by this potential hotel and surrounding tourist sites. On our way home last week from seeing the eye opening film “21 Miles in Malibu” about how the PCH was made to bring in more people than Malibu can handle my husband and I nearly hit 4 cars making illegal u turns in front of us from Adamson House to Las Flores. It is THE most dangerous highway for residents and tourists and the safety of it with this new hotel needs to be evaluated properly or more people will die at this intersection. This should be a TOP priority for the planning commission’s consideration or it will lie on your consciences.

9. The over 50 ft tall retaining wall being built CANNOT be allowed with a variance. This will set a devastating precedent and cause more alterations in the natural bluff coastline we have here. You can see clearly in the image below attached that from the “ground level” the wall will tower at over 46 ft tall. Cityhood was supposed to protect further devastation of our natural bluffs and further overbuilding of these high retaining walls where this one WOULD BE THE HIGHEST EVER. Plus they’re adding a four foot freeboard and screening to protect it from the rockfall and erosion already taking place on this slope.
1086
3 10. The Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 13.27 of the Malibu LIP, may allow heights up to 24 feet for flat roofs and 28 feet for pitched or sloped roofs. It is fairly obvious in the plan attached that the elevation from the “ground floor” to the roofline is 11ft + 8.1ft + 8ft =27.1 ft plus if you add in the rooftop bar and pool to the bottom of the elevator shaft that’s another 3.6ft which makes the total height over 30 ft. Planning should also include the elevator shaft which is part of the structure which would make the building over 44 ft tall. Either way it is much over the allowed limits per the code and adversely affects the neighborhood character. Because of this error in the plans where it falsely states the height is under 24 ft this item needs to be denied or sent back.

11. The LCP states for commercial buildings that “In no event shall the maximum number of stories above grade be greater than two.” The current staff report states: “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.” With a ground floor lobby and a parking garage this clearly shows the structure is 3 stories when only 2 stories are allowed.

The first‐floor lobby/parking lot and the top floor roof deck with a railing, elevator shaft, pool and roof over the bar constitute a fourth story. The code allows only chimneys and rooftop antenna on top of roofs. The MND refers to the project constantly as a three level motel also. The pool should NOT be allowed in a motel zoned area.

12. The noise study never analyzed all areas of impacts properly (see attached study areas). Also the owners want to have music on the rooftop bar/pool deck all day from 7a until 2a which is unacceptable. This will greatly disturb the neighbors above and at the chabad and daycare where children and babies will be trying to sleep right next door.

13. A liquor license will likely not be awarded given its location right next to a daycare center & synagogue and across from a public park as per California Business and Professions Code 23789.

14. Norm Hainey had to jump through hoops regarding the affordable housing aspect of his Sea View Hotel properly zoned recycled building project yet no stipulations have been put on this brand new project of the Hakim’s. It cannot move forward without any DEFINED affordable housing options or large payments to the city (none to the MRCA please) which really shouldn’t be allowed to happen by “buying out” affordable housing required by the Coastal Commission.

See p 780 of the staff report the CCC “recommend(s) that the staff report include additional information (i.e., proposed nightly room rate, the median cost of an overnight room in the City of Malibu, etc.) and analysis in order to fully address the project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan.” However, the staff report does NONE of this.

15. Hainey also had to provide a check valve for potable water which also needs to be added officially to this project before any approval can occur.

16. The project is NOT the least environmentally damaging alternative, the current parking lot is. Or a commercial retail project design as submitted by Lester Tobias which does NOT cut into the bluff and uses far less wastewater. So there are other alternatives that could have been explored but were not and therefore does not satisfy the findings for the variances.

These are the main reasons to deny the project but at the VERY least an environmental impact report should be REQUIRED under CEQA to evaluate the "Potentially Significant Impact" including risks of traffic, parking, safety, noise, geology, groundwater levels, toxins (from the former gas station, etc), septic effluent and it’s effect on our beaches and ocean, immense damage to land forms and adjacent properties, erosion, etc. This will answer all the unanswered questions for such a HUGE project with so many variances requested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable determination in applying the rule of law for this project which has so many, many red flags.

Jo Drummond
1087
4 1088
5 1089
6 1090
7 1091
8 1092
9 1093
10 1094
11 1095
12 1096
13 1097
14 1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1 Planning Commission
From: Jason Larian >
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 12:37 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Malibu Inn Project
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Jason Larian, and I am a longƟme resident of Malibu, residing at Broad Beach Road, Malibu CA. I am wriƟng to express my wholehearted support for the upcoming Malibu Inn Motel project, which is scheduled for a hearing this Monday.

As a local, I have witnessed the steady growth of Malibu over the years and have always been proud of our community's ability to maintain its unique charm while accommodaƟng the needs of residents and visitors alike. The Malibu Inn will be a valuable addiƟon to our community, providing an aƩracƟve and affordable lodging opƟon for the increasing number of visitors we see each year.

There is a significant gap in the market for reasonably priced, quality accommodaƟons in Malibu. Many tourists are deterred from staying here due to the lack of affordable lodging opƟons, which in turn affects local businesses that rely on tourism to thrive. The Malibu Inn will help address this issue by offering a much‐needed alternaƟve for visitors who want to enjoy the beauty and aƩracƟons of Malibu without breaking the bank.

AddiƟonally, the Malibu Inn promises to bring new job opportuniƟes to our community, offering both full‐Ɵme and part‐ Ɵme posiƟons for local residents. This will contribute to the economic growth of Malibu and support our community's ongoing development.

I believe that the Malibu Inn will be an asset to Malibu, enhancing our reputaƟon as a welcoming and inclusive desƟnaƟon for tourists while supporƟng the local economy. I urge the Planning Commission to approve this project, as it will be beneficial for both residents and visitors.

Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon. I hope you will take my perspecƟve as a Malibu resident into account when making your decision on the Malibu Inn project.

Best Regards,

Jason Larian

Broad Beach, Malibu CA
T:

C:
1126
1 Planning Commission
From: Lisa Sockolov >
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 8:17 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Hi,
My name is Lisa Sockolov and I am writing this letter in strong support of the Malibu Inn Motel.

I’ve been following this project closely.

Having a new motel in Malibu is long overdue. I can’t tell you the countless amount of times we have friends and family wanting to come visit us in this great town, yet have nowhere to stay.

Malibu Beach Inn and Nobu are very expensive and many times do not have availability. There needs to be more options for people with a lower budget.

The Sea View hotel project which was just approved, is about 4 times the size and much more impactful. Malibu Inn Motel a small 7,000 sq ft project which is staying within the guidelines of its zoning. Sea View changed the zoning entirely. If we can’t get behind people applying for a project within its zoning rights, we are not doing our job as a city.

This looks like a beautiful motel project that fits perfectly in the immediate commercial visitor serving area. I am sure it will also help the surrounding businesses as well.

Ownership and planning staff seem to have really done their due diligence and met all the code requirements.

I am tired of looking at that empty abandoned parking lot. It would be so nice to see some life and vitality brought to this section of Malibu, not to mention all the jobs and revenue this project will bring to this great city.

Thank you for your time and energy on this.

Best,
Lisa
Heathercliff Rd #
Malibu, CA 90265

M
m
m
1127
2 M m m
Lisa Sockolov
Luxury Lifestyles
Your referrals are the greatest compliments I can receive. 310.849.5758
[email protected]
9440 Santa Monica Blvd PH | Beverly Hills CA. 90210
carolwoodre.com
DRE 01324484
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

M
m
m
‐‐

M
m
m
M m m
Lisa Sockolov
Luxury Lifestyles
Your referrals are the greatest compliments I can receive. 310.849.5758
[email protected]
9440 Santa Monica Blvd PH | Beverly Hills CA. 90210
carolwoodre.com
DRE 01324484
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. 1128
3 M
m
m
1129
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: Malibu Inn Project
From: Dawnie Randall
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Inn Project
Dear Mr. Mollica and Mr. Fernadez,
We are writing in support of the Malibu Inn project. Throughout the year we have friends and relatives visiting Malibu on a regular basis. More often than not, they have to stay either in Santa Monica or Agoura as the hotel rooms are limited here. From a city revenue standpoint we would like to point out that not only is Malibu lodging revenue lost, but our friends and relatives end up spending a considerable amount of money on retail stores near where they lodge and we often meet them over the hill or in Santa Monica for dinners. I have heard this similar story from neighbors in my condo complex as well as local friends.

Almost always, there are no Malibu hotel or motel reservations when we have visitors and frequently they even come in off- peak season. This leads us to believe that Malibu definitely needs another hotel.

Additionally after the Welsley fire we spent 4 weeks in a Ventura Hotel. Having the option of staying in a local hotel with generator power would have been the optimal solution while getting our affairs in order as well as working locally. My husband is a 35 year local business owner here in Malibu and I work in Malibu as well.

Please consider this most necessary addition to our city.

Sincerely,
Mark and Dawn Randall
1130
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - Item 1B - Malibu Inn Motel - Support From: Mikke Pierson
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Dennis Smith <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Jeff Jennings <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Skylar Peak <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment ‐ Item 1B ‐ Malibu Inn Motel ‐ Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links,reply or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission,
As you are likely aware, I was involved with proposed projects at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway several times over a number of years. In the past, the big issue that I did not feel I could vote in favor of was a very high retaining wall at the rear of the building. While I understand that you have many issues that you need to decide on before you vote, I feel that the current proposal is vastly improved from previous versions.

I've read the letters from the public both in support and against this project. Your ultimate decision should come down to your interpretation of the codes that factor into this project. I believe the variance on the retaining wall can be made now because of the characteristics of the property and the retaining walls already at several other properties to the East. This is also true for the front yard setback variance as well.

We may personally like or dislike a small lodging project in Malibu or in this zone, but in my opinion this is the zone that we want lodging to be placed in and we are clearly very low on overnight accommodations in our town. From everything I have read, I am in supprt of approving this project.

Thank you for your service,
Mikke Pierson
This communication contains proprietary information and may be confidential. This information is intended solely for the intended recipient and may not be shared without prior written approval. If you are not the intended recipient, the reading, copying, disclosure or other use of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and you are instructed to please delete this e-mail immediately. 1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1 Planning Commission
From: nicholas eliopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Planning Commission; Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu inn motel project
Dear Planning Commission,

My name is Nick. I have an office walking distance to this location and am a local businessman in town. I think this project is a huge benefit to the City and the entire neighborhood. It is about time that this parking lot got developed. It is the only vacant parking lot in this stretch of PCH and is a blight for the City. The added tax is a plus and after a decade of being in planning, we should be supporting business owners and people who will be helping the community in such a positive fashion. From this motel being opened, the area will be rejuvenated, and other business can feed of.f of one another. The area is zoned for commercial visitor for this exact reason. I am in support of this project and would urge you to approve it.

Thank you for your time.

Best,
Nick
1521
1 Planning Commission
From: R Y A N
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 6:30 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; Jeffrey D Jennings; res02igz; Skylar; Rebecca Evans; Kelsey Pettijohn; Steve McClary; Richard Mollica; Adrian Fernandez
Subject: Malibu Inn Hotel proposed for 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu Attachments: 5-31-23 Oppose Malibu Inn Hotel -- zoning.pdf; 4-17-23 PC Malibu In Hotel.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please see Malibu Township Council's attached correspondence for tonight's Hearing Item 1.B. for a proposed Malibu Inn hotel at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway.
1522
1 April 17, 2023
Honorable Planning Commission,
Since its incorporation in 1947, Malibu Township Council (MTC) has represented its members in the Malibu area and remains a strong advocate for reasonable governance, responsible environmental public policy, and responsible development. As such, we are very concerned about the propriety and validity of commercial development of the land parcel identified as 22959 Pacific Coast Highway, the parcel for which a hotel is proposed and named Malibu Inn Motel (“Hotel” or “22959”). The 22959 parcel is owned by, or a controlled asset of, the Hakim family (“Applicant”) and abuts a separate land parcel to the west at 22969 Pacific Coast Highway (“22969”) upon which, currently, a single-story wood-frame commercial building with primary tenant as a historic bar/nightclub/restaurant formerly known as Malibu Inn, but whose business is currently named Aviator Nation and/or Dreamland (“Aviator Nation”, or “AN”), both located within the lawful jurisdiction of the City of Malibu (“City”) and subject to the laws of the State of California’s (“State”) Local Coastal Plan as approved by the State’s Coastal Commission and administered by the City for project conformance amongst the City’s own building, zoning, and municipal codes. The Applicant for the Hotel project intends to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages for which local “necessity” finding is required before a State-issued alcoholic beverage license is considered.

Malibu Township Council submits notice to the City that this Hotel application on its face is ineligible for City approval because of its fatal conflict with Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”) Title 17, in definition, as expressly stated. There is no need to further need to evaluate the impermissible 52-feet-high retaining wall, unsafe head-in parking prohibited in front yard setback near public sidewalk, rooftop pool, rooftop bar, alcohol sales, or variances to waive height exceedance, minimum parking requirements contained in MMC Title 17.

The configuration and design of the proposed project constitutes a “hotel” by definition in MMC Title 17, and DOES NOT conform to the definition of “motel” in Title 17.

Malibu Township Council enters into the record the following facts and objections. Should the Planning Commission continue to hearing this application, despite the Hotel’s non-conformance to City zoning law and its definitions, and impermissibly pretend the Applicant’s Hotel is simply a “motel”, or effect defacto spot zoning by issuance of variances for which findings cannot be met, the absurdity and abuse of this public hearing process would be a serious transgression of public policy and law. Regardless, Malibu Township Council opposes the proposed Hotel project for multiple reasons, including the following:

1. The Zone for 22959 is CV1. CV-1 Zoning disallows the proposed use as designed, configured, and proposed structure, and in the USES proposed in the application. The Commercial Visitor Serving 1 Zone (“CV-1”) of the City prohibits a hotel by exclusion in defined allowable uses within CV-1.

Staff has improperly continued to process the Hotel application despite the obvious non-conformance with the underlying Zoning. CV-1 excludes can only accommodate a “motel” as defined in Title 17 WITHOUT kitchens in rooms, food service, valet parking, a bar, and rooftop swimming pool. As proposed, the Hotel would cater to destination use other than overnight accommodation and engage in sales to patrons other than registered overnight guests. The proposed Hotel’s configuration, with subterranean parking, food service, bar, valet parking, and other services and amenities constitute “hotel” uses as defined in City Zoning codes, and further precludes application or review as a “motel” use in CV1 zone. The current application is, thus, not approvable in form because the proposed USE is prohibited by definition under Title 17, and further, is NOT conditionally approvable for construction as configured. 1523
2 The impermissible Hotel uses fail the basic requirement of existing zoning definition of “motel” for all guest rooms lead to the parking lot space and thus preserving lower-cost scenario of self-parking rather than the Hotel amenities of valet parking, on-site food service or restaurant, alcoholic beverage bar service, or recreation facilities open to the general public, room service, kitchen/s, and requires parking allocation necessary to provide for, and accommodate, the aforementioned amenities and general public uses. As proposed, Malibu Inn comprises a Hotel operation and fails to provide requisite number of parking spaces for the uses proposed.

2. The Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (“AOWTS”) is ineligible for construction location because the required 100% expansion area for 22959 is area already allocated the 100% expansion area for the adjacent 22969 commercial building which includes AN. The 22969 AN building parcel is deficient for its own required 100% AOWTS future expansion.

3. The proposed AOWTS’ includes a 10,000 gallon storage/buffer tank (“Tank”) that is insufficient in capacity to buffer release of only 1,700 gallons per day (“GPD” effluent yet provide for the extended summer weekend sewage generation of the proposed hotel use. Wastewater generation exceedance of permissible disposal capacity occurs at approximately 60% room occupancy (14 rooms). The number of rooms must be reduced to no more than 14.

Full occupancy is known and expected to recur as a result of the massive influx of approximately 16 million annual tourist visitors to the Malibu region, with peak convergence occurring during summer weekends, 3-day holiday weekends, and in response to recurring Special Event attractions such as the annual Chili Cook Off, Malibu Arts Festival, Chumash Day, Cars and Coffee-type events, and Pepperdine University’s Graduation and Songfest. Exceedance of system design capacity or diminished operating capacity due to age, wear, or build-up of solids negatively impacts actual operating capacity of the AOWTS. Above-average human attendance would cause AOWTS failure, sewage overflow, and/or sewage system back-up and create immediate public health and safety hazard for 22959 and potentially adjacent parcels and publicly-owned Pacific Coast Highway (“PCH”). Sewage overflow into public storm water course leads directly to the Pacific Ocean approximately three hundred feet away. Periods of peak occupancy for 22959 are predictable to occur on summer weekend and extended holiday weekends – days that the City of Malibu (“City”) is legally “closed” due to ordinance and City response for inspection, compliance, and enforcement is thereby compromised and/or overtaxed by other simultaneous needs.

4. City response time “after hours” and Summer vacation days, hot weather days in the general Los Angeles region, summer weekends, holidays, extended holiday weekends, and extended holiday summer weekends result in historic and foreseeable influx of tourists, visitors, and beachgoers that arrive by motor vehicle conveyance, compete for inadequate private and public parking, and cause traffic congestion that exceeds the design capacity PCH between Topanga Canyon Boulevard (near Maestro’s Ocean Club restaurant) and Morning View Drive in Malibu – a distance of 15 miles – which comprises the majority of the City of Malibu’s commercially zoned land fronting PCH. The result is stop-and-go traffic congestion that negatively-impacts Malibu residents’ (“Residents”) ability to efficiently travel within the City. Further, the traffic jams, which routinely result in rear-end or turning-movement crashes that can shut down PCH in both directions for several hours, hold Residents hostage from Fire Department emergency response, emergency medical services, Sheriff law enforcement, and mutual aid resources in the event of unforeseeable circumstances such as Fire, Earthquake, mass-shooter, or utility interruption (water, electricity, municipal sewage system and treatment, etc.). Evacuation of persons during peak attendance/sewage generation is nearly impossible when PCH is jammed with traffic or “closed” due to a resulting or concurrent emergency. The “perfect storms” now occur regularly, as evidenced by State Department of Transportation (“CALTRANS”) engineers statements, on record, that “rush hour” for weekday morning and afternoon commuters has extended earlier and later to include several more hours daily for each time period. Those commuters are not the typical destination tourists looking to park at and patronize a boutique commercial hotel/bar with rooftop pool attraction.

5. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1524
3 Timely Emergency Response is negatively-impacted by the resultant, predictable, and recurring stop-andgo PCH traffic back-up that extends for miles in each directions from Topanga Canyon Boulevard to Morning View Drive – a distance of 15 miles. The applicant’s ability to perform an environmental clean-up of sewage release in a timely manner under traffic-induced constraints in summer, on weekends, on summer weekends, holiday weekends, and extended summer holiday weekend conditions is impractical when relying on regional resources emanating beyond the City limits – especially if PCH must close one travel lane in response to sewage overflow, emergency vehicle staging or parking, “containment” barricade, or “clean-up” site boundaries.

6. The 22969 and/or 22959 parcels front PCH in an area of historic and ongoing traffic congestion and high traffic collision rate. Said area includes adjacent PCH frontage to parking for the State of California’s Malibu Pier (State Park) and PCH public parking near world-famous Surfrider Beach. The State’s historic Adamson House museum, adjacent to Surfrider Beach, is a location for summer week-end weddings and a source of revenue to maintain the structure. The Serra Canyon neighborhood’s primary fire egress is out a non-signalized, private intersection of Serra Road to PCH opposite the Adamson House Museum.

CALTRANS painted the asphalt intersection “Keep Clear” in response to recurring traffic back-up and blockading Residents from real-world traffic approximately 1,200 west of 22959.

7. Inadequate Traffic Mitigation
Existing traffic requires mitigation which the proposed Hotel’s additional destination uses create and exacerbate, and are deficient by failing to effectively mitigate. In particular, on-site parking for the Hotel / 22959 exacerbates parking deficiency for 22969 which impermissibly relies upon public parking on PCH for existing operations. AN bar/nightclub operations rely upon, and cause, off-site parking to occur on PCH to the detriment of existing uses of Malibu Pier, Adamson House Museum, and beachgoers to Surfrider Beach. The parking deficit exacerbates the negatively-impacts to traffic flow from traffic signal stoppage of PCH traffic for pedestrian crossing at the existing Malibu Pier traffic signal for AN and/or Hotel patrons due to existing AN use, and/or for both AN combined with the Hotel use’s deficient on-site parking. Further, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is known to occur despite the near-proximity of the existing Malibu Pier traffic signal. Average Daily Traffic exceeds 50,000 vehicle trips during week-day, mid-day business hours – not the evening rush hour when Hotel and existing AN uses would peak, or on weekends or holiday-extended weekends – or during Summer peak beach attendance. By relying on the 22969 parcel, but not mitigating its traffic and parking deficiencies – and actually exacerbating them by taking SEVEN parking spaces away from 22969 and attributing same to 22959, the proposed project application ignores neighborhood impacts which it causes and hides behind the separate 22969 parcel’s flexible boundary line to disown and dismiss those impacts, yet the proposed 22959 project applicant DOES own 22969. The proposed project fails to adequately mitigate traffic turning movements with PCH to safe levels.

8. DETRIMENT TO LIFE SAFETY
PCH’s existing Fatality Rate is indisputably high in the general Eastern-Malibu commercially-zoned area which includes Carbon Beach westerly to Cross Creek Road, per numerous PCH Safety and TurningMovement Studies funded by Metropolitan Transit Authority and/or the State of California over the last twenty-eight years. The adjacent region’s Fatality Rate is inadequately addressed, analyzed, and mitigated for the proposed use. Given the ongoing fatalities and high fatality rate, the unmitigated parking deficit for the proposed uses on 22959 that match “hotel” in City zoning codes, the proposed Hotel project at 22959 decreases Public Safety by making it worse for vehicles and pedestrians by addition of traffic and turning movements without sufficient mitigation.

9. EXPECTATION OF RELIANCE ON EXPIRED EXEMPTION FROM RWQCB DISCHARGE

PROHIBITION FOR DISSIMILAR PROJECT PROPOSAL
The applicant failed to file for extension to the conditions imposed by the State’s Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (”RWQCB”) for development on the 22959 parcel as commercial storefront office/retail space compliant with Malibu’s Zoning. RWQCB conditions limit subsurface wastewater discharge to 1,700 GPD – AND -- directly to the 22959 parcel -- and never contemplated the waterintensification for use a “hotel”, or “motel”, as defined in Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”). The completely1525 4 different proposed project of today, as a “hotel” with amenities, by definition in MMC and/or national standards, lacks any nexus to the previously-proposed structure and uses as conditioned 13 years ago in 2009. The over-riding conditional maximum limit of 1,700 GPD discharge for 22959 is THE basis and upper limit for any exemption – expired or not – from the RWQCB’s Prohibition on subsurface septic discharge (“Prohibition”) currently in effect. The 1,700 maximum GPD discharge rate – expired (or not) condition of approval for exemption from the Prohibition excluded environmental impact analysis, or Public Hearing, for a contrived mitigation to warehouse sewage in the Tank to buffer the sewage generated by an alternative development project that is prohibited, as described and contained in the alternative project’s proposal/drawings/description/public notice.

10. The applicant failed to comply with the conditions for exemption from the Prohibition. The applicant impermissibly withheld from RWQCB the applicant’s alternative proposal for a Hotel and sought to springload changes for approval after-the-fact, and impermissibly so, by violating expressly stipulated conditions comprising exemption from the Prohibition in 2009, by exclusively applying for zoning permits for a completely-different proposed project containing a Hotel. Said non-compliant submission of application violated the terms of RWQCB’s conditional exemption from the RWQCB discharge Prohibition. The applicant’s exclusive submission directly to the City of Malibu constitutes serial development approval by sequential, delayed, and concealed development application as the proposed project of a Hotel envisions off-site/expansion to 22969 parcel, an existing structure and permit holder for subsurface sewage discharge within the defined Prohibition area.

11. The proposed new project requires a new project application and failing to comply with uses conducive to the RWQCB’s 1,700-gallon daily maximum and without a Tank, ostensibly necessary, to justify the water-intensive use proposed by the Hotel with amenities. The extent and scope of AOWTS system proportional to the maximum 1,700 GPD limit imposed for exemption from the Prohibition in 2009, never contemplated extraordinary work-around concoct an AOWTS to somehow “fit” the criteria required for a completely-different proposed project, and for subsurface discharge only to the 22959 parcel.

12. The now-proposed Tank fails to address the limited, and unproven, capacity of the 22959 land to carry on-site subsurface discharge where located so close to the water table and sea level of the Pacific Ocean. The complexity of adding the Tank as an essential link in the chain of treatment to subsurface discharge unnecessarily complicates both the design and operation of the AOWTS and injects another component which increases the likelihood and frequency of potential failure – all in this complicated workaround quest to put a size 13 foot into a size 5 shoe. The “numbers” game-designed AOWTS with Tank would not increase the limited carrying-capacity of the land. Further, the RWQCB’s conditions for its 2009 exemption from Prohibition for a small, single-story strip mall is such a completely-different intensity of sewage generation from the 2009 project that permit modification is impermissible public policy – and that is IF the 2009 project permit has not expired (the over-riding factor seemingly undetermined).

13. Further, if ever approved, enforcement of the 1,700 GPD limit would be difficult or impossible and likely negatively-impact the adjacent 22969 parcel and others, or cause surface “daylighting” of AOWTS discharge near the Pacific Ocean, PCH, and established storm water course which lead to State beaches and area open to the public.

14. The existing, non-conforming business uses at 22969 include deficient onsite parking. Combined with the misapplication of “motel” parking requirements for this Hotel at 22959 further conceal pertinent facts from the record, and cumulative effects, for which mitigation is excluded. This project, as proposed, is ineligible as submitted: a “motel” in contravention to Malibu Municipal Code Zoning definition, and fails to comply with eligible use criteria, and zoning of 22959. The special circumstances of the Fatality Rate, high traffic congestion, and peak-traffic congestion necessitate and Environmental Impact Report analysis for general traffic mitigation.

14. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RWQCB TERMS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RWQCB’s specifically restricted 22959 to 1,700 GPD discharge. The City is a party to the memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with RWQCB to implement application for development at 22959. 1526
5 Development criteria is limited to the correlation of sewage generation based on USE and number of FIXTURES to preclude exceedance.

15. PERMIT EXPIRATION
The City should have closed this project application for expiration or inactivity for nearly 10 years.

GeoConcepts report dated June 20, 2018 it states that “the proposed commercial development project was approved from a geotechnical perspective in the CDP review stage on May 31, 2016. The revised plans for the motel project were submitted over two years later on June 11, 2018. The fixture count also going to 4 times the amount from 56 units to over 229 units shows two extremely different projects and a new application should have been filed. Especially given the water issues at the site.

16. The negative declaration it states that when fully occupied there would be 20 employees and 40 guests. Parking for the each employee, guests, and the public uses exceeds 50 onsite parking Improper variances, joint parking agreements (“JPA”), and valet parking combine to failure at nearby Nobu and SoHo House's lot, which causes traffic back-ups on PCH. Such variances, JPAs, and valet parking do not enable a hope that 1 + 1 = 4 parking spaces.

17. The granting of the variances for the project does constitute a special privilege as no properties in the immediate vicinity are built into the slope with a unallowable giant over 50 ft tall retaining wall, and inadequate parking.

18. Construction and maintenance of a 52 ft tall retaining wall with excavation of 58 ft x 60 ft, to unknown subsurface depth, puts the homes above and below at risk. The variance for retaining wall height exceedance should be DENIED to protect private property and ensure public safety.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

19. Groundwater was encountered during geotechnical exploration that was not studied in the private sewage report in 2012 or subsequent septic reports. The proposed construction piles will encounter groundwater per the project’s June 20, 2018 geotechnical report. The last percolation test completed for the property was twenty years ago -- April 17, 2003. Climactic conditions and sea level rise has occurred after the 2003 study for which new tests are needed. completed. Groundwater level data and beach deposits data in the latest geotechnical reports complete prior to RWQCB discharge prohibition in 2009.

The wastewater analysis study was based on 56 fixture units and comports to the 1,700 GPD maximum permissible limit -- the new 231 fixture units proposed for a Hotel. Peak sewage generation flow stated in the 2014 Ensitu report analysis was nearly 2,000 GPD at 56 units. At more than FOUR TIMES the fixture count, wastewater generation of 8,000 GPD is conservative, further evidence to DENY the project for failure to comply with regulatory limits.

20. California Environmental Quality Act non-conformance. The City improperly issued a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for this project instead of an Environmental Impact Report to address the regional, neighborhood, and unmitigated negative impacts at 22959. The MND failed to address additional traffic impacts and safety risks associated with the most congested section of PCH. These include increased nighttime trips, increased nighttime pedestrian crossings of PCH by hotel guests, and increased nighttime left turns into and out of the unsignalized/uncontrolled driveways.

The owners of the land also own the adjoining parcel. That is an incredible development opportunity being squandered here.

Sincerely,
Malibu Township Council
1527
1528
1 Planning Commission
From: Suzannah Owens >
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Project
To Whom it May Concern,
I am emailing regarding the current Malibu Inn Motel project. I live nearby and I believe this will be a great addition to the area. We really need more hotel options in Malibu.

I think this project will be a great asset to the city and I look forward to referring family members from out of town.

Best,
Suzannah
1529
1 Planning Commission
From: Seena Samimi >
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Richard Mollica; Adrian Fernandez; Alex Hakim; Steven Hakim Subject: Malibu Inn Motel - Revised Letter to Planning Commission re COAs (5.31.23 hearing)(71351949.1) [JMBM-LA.82420.0001]
Attachments: Malibu Inn Motel - Revised Letter to Planning Commission re COAs (5.31.23 hearing) (71351949.1).pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Honorable Commissioners:

We represent Surfrider Plaza LLC, the applicant for the Malibu Inn Motel Project ("Project"). Please see the attached letter relating to the Conditions of Approval for the Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best,
ss
Seena Max Samimi | Attorney at Law
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 D: (310) 785‐5344 | M: (310) 972‐1318 | E: [email protected] NATIONAL TIER ONE IN U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
This e‐mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney‐client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e‐mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com 1530
71351949v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Seena Max Samimi
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
May 30, 2023

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
[email protected]
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Malibu Inn Motel – Conditions of Approval
Special Planning Commission Hearing for May 31, 2023
Honorable Commissioners:

We represent Surfrider Plaza LLC, the applicant for the Malibu Inn Motel Project ("Project"), in connection with its planning and land use issues. Prior to the April 17, 2023 Planning Commission hearing for the Project, we submitted a letter on April 12, 2023. That letter explained that the applicant has no issues with the vast majority of the Conditions of Approval, but that there are some that are not compatible with the Project, and requested modification or removal of those conditions.

Since that time, staff has made several changes to the resolution and Conditions of Approval. This letter removes the items that have already been resolved by staff, and addresses only the most important items that remain problematic, or put the motel at a competitive disadvantage to other motels/hotels in the area.

32. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
• Issue: These hours are too restrictive, and do not allow alcohol to be served for brunch, and at the bar in the late evenings, and are more restrictive than the recently approved Sea View Hotel.
• Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to Midnight, Sunday through Wednesday Thursday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Thursday through Saturday, and long weekends and holidays.”
1531
City of Malibu
May 30, 2023

Page 2 ends

71351949v1

33. No live entertainment or amplified sound 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. 38 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. • Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas. Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted for the neighboring Aviator Nation site, and is at page 774-788 of the staff report packet. Also, the reference to Condition No. 38 is wrong (the condition is about signage), and the intended referral was likely Condition No. 35 (about noise).
• Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No live entertainment or amplified sound 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. 38 and off street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number of people expected in the event. Low-level ambient music is permitted in the common areas.”

43. None of the parking spaces may be used as public parking. • Issue: There is no reason why the Motel should not be permitted to open the parking for public use. This would be a benefit to the community on days where the motel is not at full capacity and additional spaces are available. Also, the Applicant intends to invest in lifts for the underground parking lot, but that only makes sense if the parking can be made available to the public.
• Solution: Delete this condition entirely.

44. No more than six employees can be at the site at any one shift. • Issue: There is no reason to restrict the number of employees. We meet the code for parking, and are the only establishment in Malibu that has this condition. Needs of the Motel may change over time, and the Applicant wants to provide a pleasant experience and good service. If employee numbers are to be restricted, they should be restricted to 8 employees at any one time, as there is one additional parking space available on-site beyond the code requirements.
• Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely (preferred). • Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “No more than six eight employees can be at the site at any one shift.”
1532
City of Malibu
May 30, 2023

Page 3 ends

71351949v1

51. 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 parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property.
• Issue: This should be clarified to include a reference to valet parking and additional parking that may be added to the site.
• Solution: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “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 parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property. Valet services and underground lift parking can be utilized to facilitate additional parking at the site. The additional spaces created through the valet and lift parking services, upon approval by the Planning Director, shall be deemed to count towards the total number of parking spaces for the Project. Applicant can redesign its Project to add additional parking spaces at the site, subject to further approval by the Planning Department, the Public Works Department, and any other relevant City departments.”
121. Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Amplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses. • Issue: Applicant intends to play low level ambient music in the lobby, hallways, and pool/lounge areas. Applicant will ensure that music is not audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling. A noise study was conducted for the neighboring Aviator Nation site, and is at paged 774-788 of the staff report packet. Based on that analysis, that site was approved to have low level ambient music until 10:00 p.m. daily. The impacts from low level ambient music will be similar to the Aviator Nation property, and less impactful than the baseline street noise from PCH.
• Solution #1: Delete this condition entirely.
• Solution #2: The Condition of Approval should be modified to read: “Prohibition of Amplified Sound. Except for low level ambient music, which is expressly permitted in the common areas, including the outdoor pool area (and which shall not be plainly audible from 5 feet of any residential dwelling), Aamplified sound outdoors is prohibited from occurring at the property. In the case that any other amplified sound is proposed outdoors at the property, the applicant shall prepare a noise study and/or otherwise demonstrate that the use of amplified sound would adhere to City noise regulation. The noise study and/or demonstration shall include review by the City and approval would be subject to 1533
City of Malibu
May 30, 2023

Page 4 ends

71351949v1
conditions of approval as necessary (e.g., maximum volume limits, complaint system implementation, etc.) to avoid impacts on nearby land uses.” Thank you for your attention to these matters. Of course, we will also be present to answer questions at the hearing.

Sincerely,
SEENA M. SAMIMI of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
CC:

Richard Mollica, [email protected]
Adrian Fernandez, [email protected]
1534
1 Planning Commission
From: Tia >
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Inn Motel
Dear Planning Commission,
I live close by to this proposed development and I am in support of this motel being brought to our city. The applicant has gone through many different agencies to get to this point, and staff has vetted this project thoroughly over the past many months and even years and has recommended approval.

I think this motel would fit nicely in the area and fill a much needed void in the community. It's about time Malibu got a new motel. I am sure we’ve all heard the complaints from so many others in the city how they are tired of neighbors Airbnbing and renting next door to them. We need to keep this to where it belongs, and it belongs here, as it’s zoned for it after all as cv1. I for one, would love to book a staycation for myself and family to enjoy a nice break in a new project, especially with the nice pool on the roof top.

Again, thanks for your time and I would support the approval of this project.

Thank you,
Tia Stevenson
1535
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 10:32 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans; R N; Patt Healy; Trevor Rusin
Subject: Item 3B 2 - MTCpullMalibuInnMotelfinal-1.docx
Attachments: MTCpullMalibuInnMotelfinal-1.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please enter the following letter into the record to pull this item tonight. I will probably also speak and ask that time be donated to me from other zoom attendees. Thank you,
Jo Drummond
1536
July 17, 2023
Honorable Planning Commission,
RE: Item 3B2 – Malibu inn Motel
Malibu Township Council is pulling this item as the resolution DOES NOT comply with our existing codes and is incorrect and illegal: the acts were CONTRARY TO LAW (LCP) and constitute UN-NOTICED ZONE CHANGE via SPECIAL PRIVILEGE and UN-Noticed variance 1. re: “subterranean garage” as it is MORE than three feet in vertical height from finished grade (11 ft!) to the bottom of the finished floor above - which makes it officially a “story” and not subterranean. Therefore, the height of the project is also calculated incorrectly as it should be calculated from that first story of the garage at the center line of the road on the land side making it over 27 ft tall. Three stories are not allowed in Malibu let alone four which this is obviously with its partially covered rooftop deck, elevator shaft and pool. See excerpt from section 17.02.060 below which I discussed at length with Adrian Fernandez at a meeting with him a few weeks ago which he stated needs to comply for the resolution. Also see figure at bottom.
1537

2. In Section 17.40.080 Commercial development standards. A5 b. states the same for residential standards:

For new construction on a beachfront lot, no residence or structure, including satellite dish antenna, shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet for flat roof and twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof, as measured from the lowest recommended finish floor elevation on the ocean side, as defined by a licensed civil engineer, based upon a comprehensive wave action report, and twenty-four (24) feet for a flat roof and twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof as measured from center line of the road on the land side. Building height shall be apportioned such that the portion of the building which height is measured from the center line of the road shall not exceed half of the total length (front to rear) of the structure.

Also note the definitions of “grade” which are being misused in this case of height measurement:

Grade (finished) means the finished ground level around the perimeter at all exterior walls of a building. 1538
Grade (ground level) means the average of the finished ground level at the center of all walls of a building.

In cases where walls are parallel to and within five feet of sidewalks, the above ground level shall be measured at the sidewalks.

Therefore, the structure should be measured from the LOWEST floor elevation on the land side if this is to be a maximum of 24 ft high. That makes it over 46 feet high to the top of the elevator shaft and again over 27 ft to the flat roof. Also if it is NON beachfront then it needs to be limited to only 18 ft high above natural or finished grade, whichever is lower (including satellite dish antenna) so an elevator shaft should be counted.

3. Regarding setbacks in the same code:

2. states: Non-Beachfront Yards/Setbacks. The following yard/setback requirements apply to all lots, except beachfront lots:
a. Front yard setbacks shall be at least twenty (20) percent of the total depth of the lot. b. Side yard setbacks shall be cumulatively at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total width of the lot but, in no event, shall a single side yard setback be less than ten (10) percent of the width of the lot or five feet, whichever is greater.
c. Rear yard setbacks shall be at least fifteen (15) percent of the lot depth or fifteen (15) feet whichever is greater.
d. For the purpose of calculating yards, slopes equal to or greater than 1:1 shall not be included in the lot dimensions.
e. All structures must be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from the top of a forty-five (45) degree angle slope starting at the toe of an inland-bluff or coastal bluff. For slopes greater than forty-five (45) degrees setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet horizontal as measured from the top of the slope at the end of the forty-five (45) degree line commencing at the base of the slope. For the purposes of this section, an inland or coastal bluff is a topographic feature not primarily composed of sand and at least twenty-five (25) feet from top to toe with a slope of 1:1 or greater.

3. Beachfront Yards/Setbacks. Notwithstanding the above requirements, the following yard requirements apply to beachfront lots:
a. Front: twenty (20) feet maximum or the average of the two immediate neighbors, whichever is less. b. Side: ten (10) percent of lot width on each side, with a three feet minimum and five feet maximum. c. Rear: determined by the stringline rule.

In Chapter 17.40 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS

1. Dwellings and Decks. For a dwelling or deck, new construction shall not extend seaward of a stringline drawn by the following procedure:
a. General Rule. The stringline shall be drawn from a point on the closest upcoast and downcoast property with the same type of structure (dwelling or deck). The stringline point shall be located as follows: first, the 1539
predominant seaward projection of the structure on the upcoast and downcoast property shall be identified; second, the corner of the predominant seaward projection which is closest to the subject property shall be located, and shall constitute the stringline point. Predominant seaward projection shall be calculated using the formula in subsection (b).
b. Predominant Seaward Projection. The “predominant seaward projection” shall be that portion of a structure closest to the ocean, which has a width (i.e., the dimension which is on a plane parallel to the ocean front) at least thirty percent (30%) of the maximum width of the structure.

Whether this is counted as a Beachfront or non-beachfront lot - This is the ONLY structure along PCH to EVER be attached to the retaining wall proposed inside the bluff/land – so ZERO rear setback which is COMPLETELY against the codes and IS a privilege given SOLELY to the applicant, no other buildings along PCH have this.

4. And if it is being considered beachfront then it is CERTAINLY a coastal bluff – ● CHAPTER 6—SCENIC, VISUAL, AND HILLSIDE RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

6.5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D. Bluff Development 2. No permanent structures shall be permitted on a bluff face, except for engineered stairways to accessways to provide public beach access. Such structures shall be designed and constructed to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.

The MND on p 38 states: “4.5.1 Existing Setting 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 bluff into the project site (Appendix B). Additionally, the project site has been previously disturbed during construction of PCH and the existing parking lot and past grading on the hillside...

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…In addition, the steep slope is unlikely to support cultural remains...” https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/29104/MalibuInnMotelISMND_Final_6221 This description meets the LIP definition of a 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.

See next page memo to City Council from Adrian Fernandez regarding a change in the interpretation of the codes adding the stipulation that bluffs no longer subjected to wave action should still be considered a coastal bluff as its prone to erosion or stability hazard and other factors as this one clearly is. 1540

5. Also any swimming pools in both CV-1 and CV-2 MUST be open to the public – see p 329 on at this link - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-lip-final.pdf - they both have a specific footnote #9 that states “uses permitted only if available to the general public”. 1541
This pool is only open to paying hotel guests and not the “general public” so cannot be allowed under the LCP.

All members of the public must have the specific right to use the pool – this is not at the discretion of the planning commission or the planning department but must be changed with an amendment to the LIP approved by the Coastal Commission.

6. This is far from the least environmentally damaging – there were a few plans submitted for the former retail project that did not cut into the bluff at all and use way less wastewater and had adequate parking– these need to be considered and not all these plans w/ multiple egregious variances where the findings CANNOT be made. Or it should stay the necessary parking lot that is there and help preserve Aviator Nation Dreamland.

7. Also please note that CV-1 only allows zoning of a "Motel" – this is a HOTEL and requires REZONING AND twice the amount of parking for the hotel, employees and the public swimming pool.

Malibu LIP DEFINITION OF MOTEL:

MOTEL - 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. Or PRIVATE pools for that matter that are not to be used for the public. This project has proposed not only a rooftop pool but a roof top bar and a commercial kitchen offering room service and food serving gatherings such as weddings and bar mitzvahs. Thus it will operate as a hotel which is only allowed in CV-2. There is no direct access from the guest rooms to the parking. None of the guest rooms are on the same level as the parking which is also required for “motel” status. To get from their rooms to the parking garage below, guests will need to travel through common walkways and corridors and use the common elevator or common stairs. Hotels require 2 parking spots per room. This should also cause an instant denial.

8. The project also CANNOT proceed as it is infiltrating on space already designated for Aviator Nation’s septic expansion area – this needs a CDP to change this area before anything can proceed with this application. Two separate lots cannot share the same area for septic use.

9. Per CEQA this specific project has not undergone any traffic, noise in the vicinity of the adjacent synagogue and school or safety studies so cannot determine if it will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare. 1542

10. The City of Malibu should also follow the ABC Control Act Section 23789 Rule 61.4 prohibiting sale of alcohol near schools or churches-this site is directly adjacent to a synagogue and an early childhood education center. It WILL be a detriment to their direct neighbors and is not considered in the surrounding development. “On-sale retail license for premises located near church, hospital, schools and public playgrounds, or nonprofit youth facilities – (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… This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the department.” P 226 of https://www.abc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022-CA-ABC-Act.pdf

11. Condition 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 parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property. The City Council did NOT allow this for the Malibu Beach Inn as code requires offsite parking withing 300ft of a commercial business and will certainly not allow this for parking for over 400 plus persons over1500 ft away.

These are just 11 of many more code violations of our Malibu LCP and MMC – first and foremost the project needs to be sent back to make all the above changes before it can proceed legally.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on not wasting the City Council’s time on this matter until it is all brought to proper legal code. The "behavioral" acts and attitude of the City staff, P.C., and City Council comprise the overall reputation that Coastal Commissioners hold against the City. This approval fuels that fire.

Jo Drummond
For Malibu Township Council
1543
1 Planning Commission
From: Tracy Lovric <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Elena Eger; [email protected]; Hudson, Steve@Coastal; Christensen, Deanna@Coastal; Gonzalez, Denise@Coastal
Subject: MRCA Public Comment July 17, 2023 Item 3B2
Attachments: 2023-07-17 MRCA-PC.Item3B2.Final.pdf
Attached please find MRCA’s public comment on the Planning Commission July 17, 2023 Agenda Item 3.B.2 Thank you.

Sincerely,
Tracy Lovric, JD
Project Analyst III
Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority
213.605.2123
https://mrca.ca.gov/coastal-access/
1544
MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY King Gillette Ranch 26800 Mulholland Highway
Calabasas, California 91302
PHONE (818) 878-0886
A local public agency exercising joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation & Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code.

Via email to [email protected]
July 17, 2023
Chairperson Skylar Peak
Malibu Planning Commissioners
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
MRCA Comment Letter on Agenda Item 3.B.2
Coastal Development Permit No. 09-067,
Malibu Inn Motel; 22959 Pacific Coast Highway
Dear Chair Peak and Planning Commissioners,
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) submits its public comments on the proposed Malibu Inn Motel development, with approximately 7,693 square feet of floor area, 24-foot tall, two-story motel building fronting Pacific Coast Highway with 20 lodging rooms, a rooftop deck, pool, spa and bar, and subterranean parking, which is Item 3.B.2 on your July 17, 2023, agenda, as follows:

The proposed Malibu Inn Motel development is inconsistent with the City’s LUP for Luxury Overnight Visitor Serving Accommodations. Section 2.35 states that “New development of luxury overnight visitor serving accommodations shall be designed to provide for a component of lower cost overnight visitor accommodations (e.g., campground, RV park, hostel, or lower cost hotel/motel) . . .” The applicant shall be required to provide lowercost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved.” The payment of an in-lieu fee based on a 20-luxury room motel into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower-cost overnight facilities per required unit plus inflation is drastically insufficient to realistically supplant the option to provide lower-cost visitor accommodations on-site or off-site in Malibu, one of the highestpriced California coastal real estate areas. The option to pay an in-lieu fee for the future subsidized development of affordable units in a City that has built none to date, while immediately permitting the creation of 20 luxury units in the same jurisdiction, does not meet the LCP objectives for new luxury coastal development to provide lower-cost accommodations.

The City has not presented evidence that the proposed development motel rooms are luxury accommodations. This failure to provide facts regarding the luxury room status had also been previously raised in the Coastal Commission’s August 25, 2021, Public Comment letter to the Planning Commission for its August 26, 2021, hearing on this Applicant’s CDP. In its letter, the Coastal Commission recommended that the Staff Report include additional information (“(i.e., proposed nightly room rate, the median cost of an 1545
Chair Skylar Peak 2
MRCA Public Comment Letter Item 3.B.2
July 17, 2023

overnight room in the City of Malibu, etc.) and analysis in order to fully address the project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan.” MRCA submitted a public comment letter on April 17, 2023, supporting the Coastal Commission’s position on the luxury accommodations. The April 17, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report presented no such facts or analysis, nor any request for the Applicant to furnish them. The matter was heard on May 31, 2023, where the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back as a consent item an updated resolution approving the proposed project with revisions to several of the required findings and conditions of approval. The July 17, 2023, Staff Report Resolution states, “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.

The City has not established that this project meets the requirements of the LCP and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act with respect to coastal access. A crucial element of coastal access is affordable coastal accommodations and services. The motel development here, if categorized as luxury overnight accommodations, does not meet the Coastal Act as the motel development will serve only a small fraction of the population who can afford the proposed motel development’s high-cost accommodations, spa, and bar. The proposed motel development does not meet section 30212 of the Coastal Act to provide lower-cost visitor facilities when feasible. In fact, there is nothing in the record here that speaks of the infeasibility of providing a lower-cost motel instead of the proposed high-cost motel development.

MRCA requests that the City not apply the exemption because the City’s staff report lacks the facts regarding the costs of the proposed project’s rooms and an analysis of these costs to determine if the project’s rooms are luxury overnight accommodations. If the motel rooms are determined to be luxury overnight accommodations, the City should comply with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and the City of Malibu LCP for the provision of on-site lower cost accommodations.

Sincerely,
Elena Eger
Coastal Projects Special Counsel
1546
Chair Skylar Peak 3
MRCA Public Comment Letter Item 3.B.2
July 17, 2023

cc: Barbara Carey, District Manager, South Central Coast and South Coast, Los Angeles County; Coastal Commission;
[email protected]
Steve Hudson, District Director, South Central Coast and South Coast, Los Angeles County; Coastal Commission;
[email protected]
Deanna Christensen, District Supervisor, South Central Coast and South Coast, Los Angeles County; Coastal Commission;
[email protected]
Denise Gonzalez, Coastal Program Analyst, South Central Coast and South Coast, Los Angeles County; Coastal Commission, [email protected]
1547
1 April 19, 2024
Re: Malibu Inn Motel - 22959 PCH Malibu Inn Motel –
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003 and Initial
Study No. 20-003
Honorable Chair Uhring and Members of the City Council, Re: Malibu Inn Motel - 22959 PCH Malibu Inn Motel – Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-003 and Initial Study No. 20-003.

Since the Malibu Township Council (MTC) filed its appeal additional information has come to light and it is another reason why the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is deficient and can’t be certified and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary.

These comments are to be incorporated into MTC’s EIR comments on page 19-20 of our appeal and are to take precedence over our comments in the Cultural Resource section of our appeal on pages 23-24.

At the January 24, 2024 Public Works Commission Meeting, Public Works Director, Rob Duboux discussed how the Serra neighborhood was taken out of Phase 2 for the civic wastewater sewer system because of the large amount of cultural artifacts found, some buried 30 feet deep, through the entirety of the neighborhood. Rob Duboux answered that it is likely that the commercial property along PCH between Serra and Carbon Canyon will also be removed from Phase 3 due to all the cultural resources/burial grounds in the area. Note: This proposed public works project in Serra was in Phase 2 of the City’s proposed sewage system despite the applicant’s proposed project being located in phase 3.

The Malibu Inn Motel property is just 1,000 feet east from the PCH entrance to Serra neighborhood and this property was part of the thriving Chumash village of Humalieo.

As Barbara Tejada, Supervisor of Cultural Resources and archaeologist for State Parks, on August 14, 2023, email (attached) states:
"It seems that the project proponent did not perform a standard archaeological records search, which would have shown the sensitivity of the area and immediately shown the presence of these sites, all of which were encountered during excavation for installation of subsurface utilities. With the proposal of subterranean parking, it is very concerning." If this required investigation were done, they would have found over 45 archaeological studies were in the vicinity which are on file with the South Central Coastal Information Center (see below). Since an archaeological records search was never done by the applicant or the city, who prepared the MND, it needs to be completed in an EIR before the MND is certified. This was confirmed not completed via a public records request with the City regarding this project.

EXHIBIT K
1548
2 Furthermore, it is most troublesome that the attached final MND states on page 38 INCORRECTLY the following:
"No archaeological resources are known to exist on the project site or immediate project vicinity."
This statement was made despite the fact local tribal representatives expressed concern during consultation that the project site is considered to be potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources."(MND page 39)
Please note, PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines:
“Tribal Cultural Resources resources” as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.” In addition to archaeological artifacts, state law also now protects “tribal cultural resources” which can be both cultural and natural resources of significance to the tribes.

AB 52 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that:
“A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2)
The Proposed Project entails new development with subterranean work therefore it has the potential to cause substantial adverse impacts to historic or tribal cultural resources requiring an EIR.

The mitigation measure TRC 1 on page 92 of the MND is not sufficient since it relies on the bulldozer operator being an expert in identifying Tribal Cultural Resources. The operator would not have this expertise.

With this information, it is not possible to certify the MND since it is defective. Since the project may have a significant effect on the environment an EIR is required under CEQA.

I will also be submitting further comments about the multiple code violations and risks of this potential project.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond
President, Malibu Township Council
1549
3 On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, at 12:23:56 PM PST, Tejada, Barbara@Parks <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jo,
Most of these reports that mention a “LAN” number means there were archaeological sites recorded and investigated. All the Phase I reports listed had an archaeological survey performed, (one) would have to look at the report to see if there was a site identified.

I am aware of the sewer project and in fact, I brought the sensitivity of the area to the attention of the City and was glad to hear that they are now looking at alternatives. The Malibu Inn Motel/Hotel site is likely a satellite use area of the village of humaliwo and it would be important at the very least to have a Phase I archaeological survey and Phase II archaeological testing conducted on the property to ensure that cultural deposits are not encountered. In addition to archaeological artifacts, state law also now protects “tribal cultural resources” which can be both cultural and natural resources of significance to the tribes.

Barbara Tejada
Supervisor, Cultural Resources Program
Acting District Interpretive Coordinator
Angeles District
California State Parks
1925 Las Virgenes Road
Calabasas, CA 91302
310-699-1703 (cell)
1550
4 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Tejada, Barbara@Parks <[email protected]> To: Jo Drummond
<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; THCP@t ataviam-nsn.us<[email protected]>
Cc: Patt Healy <[email protected]>; R. Y. A. N. <[email protected]>; Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 07:38:15 PM PDT
Subject: RE: tribal contact for Malibu Inn Mote/Hotel Project at 22959 PCH Hi Jo,
I reached out to a colleague of mine, Rob Wlodarski, who has done lots of archaeological work on private property in Malibu over the years. He recalled that he had done some survey on the site several years ago and provided some references for the area. Of course, none of this was mentioned in the project EIR.

Project: A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed
Improvements to 22931-33 Pacific Coast Highway (APN#4452- 019-008), 22935 Pacific Coast Highway (4452-019-010)
and, 22941 Pacific Coast Highway (APN#4452-019-009), City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California
Clewlow, Carl William
1981 Report on Preliminary Archaeological Testing and Recommendations for Mitigation at Site LAN-267, Locus C, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Coleman, Griff and Taggart
1972 Archaeological Site Record CA-LAN-421. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Dillon, Brian D.
1986 Malibu Wastewater Facilities Project: Archaeological Testing Plan for Sites LAN-210, LAN-226, LAN-19 and LAN-246. Report (L-81/VN1457) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Frierman, Jay D.
1993a Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Developed Residential Lot at 22031 Carbon Mesa Road, Malibu, California. Report (L2791) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 1551
5 1993b Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Developed Residential Lot at 22540 Carbon Mesa Road, Malibu, California. Report (L2826) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Getchell, Barbie Stevenson and John E. Atwood
2003 Initial Cultural Resources Evaluation of A 1.46-Acre Parcel (APN 4451- 007-009) Located at 3849 Carbon Canyon Road in the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (L6941) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton Greenwood, Roberta S. and John M. Foster
1989 Evaluation of Condition: CA-LAN-471, CA-LAN-1105, and CA-LAN-1106, Malibu, Los Angeles County. Report (LA1876) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

King, Chester
1992 Report of Volunteer Archaeological Surveys in Malibu for Project Applications. Report (LA3480 on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
1994 Prehistoric Native American Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains. Report (LA3587) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
1998 Report of Initial Archaeological Study at 22035 Carbon Mesa Road, Malibu, California. Report (L4333) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
1999 Report of Initial Archaeological Study at 3516 Sweetwater Mesa Road, Malibu, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2000a Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Report prepared for the Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation, National Parks Service, Western Region, Denver.
2000b Report of Initial Archaeological Study for a Road at APN#4452-011-012- 014-016, Malibu, California. Report (LA4813) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Lewis, Brandon S.
1552
6 1989 Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact Evaluation for the 20 Acre Carbon Canyon Parcel, Malibu, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Romani, Gwen
1989 Cultural Resource Investigation Parcel No. 44, Malibu. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Rosen, Martin D. and Carl William Clewlow
1975 Evaluation of Archaeological Resources for the Areawide Facilities Plan: Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. Report LA81) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California St. University Fullerton.

Singer, Clay A.
1981a Cultural Resource Survey and Impact Assessment for Tentative Tract No.40724, In Malibu, Los Angeles County, California.Report on file (LA995), South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
1981b Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Connolley Parcel, Sweetwater Mesa, Malibu, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 1988 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the John Paul Jones Residence, an 8 Acre Property Located on the North End of Sweetwater Mesa Road in Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton 1989 Archaeological Investigation at CA-LAN-267B, Portion of the Sweetwater Mesa Site in Malibu, LA County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 1999 Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAN-267A East: Phase II Testing at 3516 Sweetwater Mesa Road in the City of Malibu, LA County, California.

Report on file, SCCIC, California State University Fullerton. 2000 Archaeological Monitoring of Seismic Trenching at 3516 Sweetwater Mesa Road, A Portion of Prehistoric Site CA-LAN-267A East, in the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Singer, Clay A., John Atwood and Shelley Marie Gomes
1553
7 1993 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a 0.37 Acre Property at 22244 Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (L2823) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

South Bay Engineering Corporation
1975 Draft Environmental Impact Report, Tentative Tract 29164, Malibu, Los Angeles County. Report (L1983) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Whitley, David and Joe Simon (W & S Consultants)
2002 Phase 1: Archaeological Survey 3416 Sweetwater Mesa Road, Malibu, LA County, California. Report (LA7602) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Wlodarski, Robert J.
1984 Historic Resources Inventory Evaluation for CA-LAN-264, The Village of Humaliwu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, California Department of Transportation, District 07, Los Angeles, California. 2001 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 22313 Carbon Mesa Drive (Salvator Trust)
City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (LA5808) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 2003a A Phase 1 Archaeological Study For 3311 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN4452-016-003), City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report (LA7604) on file, SCCIC, California State University Fullerton. 2003b Archaeological Monitoring for Proposed Geological Testing at 3311 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN4452-016-003), CA-LAN-3125, City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 2003c An Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Study for CA-LAN-3125 Located at 3311 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN4452-016-003), City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2003d A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Two Lots Within APN#4452-025- 001 and #4452-025-002, West of Carbon Canyon, City of Malibu, Los Angeles 1554
8 County, California. Report (LA6893) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2003e A Negative Archaeological Study for Proposed Soil Borings at 3714 Carbon Canyon Road, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (LA5805) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2003f A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to APN4452-025-011 and APN4452-025-002, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (LA6893) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2003g A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 22224 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report (LA2854) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2003h Archaeological Monitoring for Geological Testing at 22965 Pacific Coast Highway (APN#4452-019-005), City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California.Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2004 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for 2860 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN#4452- 025-021) Site 3 – VG Estates LLC, City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California.Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2005a A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 2860 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN#4452- 025-021) Site 3 – VG Estates LLC, City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 2005b A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for 2930 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN#4452- 025-023) Site 4 – VG Properties LLC, City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2005c A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements (construction of a swimming pool) at 3464 Sweetwater Mesa Road (APN#4452-016-015) City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report (LA7589) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton. 2005d A Phase 1 Archaeological Study was prepared for an environmental document in support of proposed improvements to 22407 Carbon Mesa Drive (APN #4451-012-034and 4451-012-035), City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, 1555
9 California. Report (LA2854) on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2007a A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 3859 Carbon Canyon Road (APN#4451-010-002) City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2007b A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 3415 Sweetwater Mesa Road, City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
2008 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to 22003 Pacific Coast Highway (APN#4451-007-018) City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.

Barbara Tejada
Supervisor, Cultural Resources Program
Acting District Interpretive Coordinator
Angeles District
California State Parks
1925 Las Virgenes Road
Calabasas, CA 91302 310-699-1703 (cell)
From: Jo Drummond <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023, 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Tejada, Barbara@Parks <[email protected]>
Cc: Patt Healy <[email protected]>; R. Y. A. N. <[email protected]>; Suzanne Guldimann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tribal contact for Malibu Inn Mote/Hotel Project at 22959 PCH Hi all…I just heard from the City of Malibu on this, and they seem to believe it’s all taken care of and addressed on pages 38-40 of this attached document. No cultural site reports were ever pulled or submitted for this project.

Let us know if any of you can submit reports or evidence to the city of Malibu planning dept to ensure that proper archaeological studies are performed before any disturbance of the area is completed. Or at least advise them that what is required was not completed.
1556
10 Thank you! Jo Drummond
On Sep 13, 2023, at 4:54 PM, Jo Drummond <[email protected]> wrote:

Attn: Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians,
My name is Jo Drummond, and I am the President of Malibu Township Council - the 75-yearold organization that helped Malibu become independent of LA County and advocates for responsible development in this City.

This letter is to request your help in our appeal to City Council on the Planning Commission approval of the Malibu Inn Motel (Hotel) at 22959 PCH next to Aviator Nation that proposes a 4-story motel/hotel that plans on cutting out .77 acres out of the natural coastal bluff - over 20,000,000 pounds of dirt in a known sensitive cultural area and unstable cliffside. This includes a subsurface parking garage.

As per Barbara Tejada's email below your concerns surrounding the project were not responded to accordingly. As there are known burial sites in the area, we understand your concerns and included them in our appeal. Any information you might have to help successfully oppose this project to City Council for reasons of cultural and environmental preservation, etc. can help.

Barbara - if you can send the records you found with your standard archaeological records search showing the three Native American cultural sites in the vicinity that would also help.

Thanks very much! Jo Drummond
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Tejada, Barbara@Parks <[email protected]> To: Jo Drummond <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Friesen <[email protected]>; Stansell, Ann@Parks <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023, at 10:44:39 AM PDT
Subject: RE: Chumash contact
Hi Jo,
I had heard about this project but didn’t know much about it. It does appear to be in the vicinity of three Native American cultural sites (CA-LAN-1449, CA-LAN-3766, and CA-LAN-690) which is not noted in the environmental document, interestingly. It seems that the project proponent did not perform a standard archaeological records search, which would have shown the sensitivity of the area and immediately shown the presence of these sites, all of which were encountered during excavation for installation of subsurface utilities.

With the proposal of subterranean parking, it is very concerning. 1557
11 It does appear that tribal consultation was conducted for the project, and two tribes responded with concerns, including the Kizh Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, but the project did not incorporate tribal monitoring during all ground disturbance, only notification if cultural materials, which in my opinion, hinges upon construction workers knowing what to look for, which they often don’t.

I would suggest reaching out to Kizh Nation ([email protected]) and FTBMI ([email protected]) with concerns. As this is not a State Parks project, we are limited on what we can officially do especially with the Final environmental document and I am assuming a final Conditional Use Permit, but I am happy to provide records search information to the tribes if there is still a window of appeal available.

Barbara Tejada
Supervisor, Cultural Resources Program
Acting District Interpretive Coordinator
Angeles District
California State Parks
1925 Las Virgenes Road
Calabasas, CA 91302
310-699-1703 (cell)
From: Jo Drummond <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 3:47 PM
To: Tejada, Barbara@Parks <[email protected]> Cc: Janet Friesen <[email protected]>; Stansell, Ann@Parks <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Chumash contact
Hi Barbara…
There is a project that was just appealed from the planning commission to the City Council across from the Malibu Pier at 22959 PCH next to Aviator Nation that proposes a 4-story motel/hotel (Malibu Inn Motel) that plans on cutting out .77 acres out of the natural coastal bluff - over 20,000,000 pounds of dirt in a known sensitive cultural area and unstable cliffside.

Has Parks been notified of this project?
Thanks, and please advise, Jo Drummond of Malibu Township Council 1558

Page 1 of 1 ends

Supplemental
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: May 6, 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 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).

DISCUSSION: The subject supplemental report includes City Council Resolution No. 24- 19 (Exhibit 1) herein published separately from the item’s Council Agenda Report which was published on Friday, May 3, 2023.

EXHIBIT:

1. City Council Resolution No. 24-19
City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item

4.B.

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 24-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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, 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 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-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND SALE OF ALCOHOL; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 18-030 FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1, 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-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 22959

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(SURFRIDER PLAZA, LLC)
The City Council 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 Highway (PCH) in the Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) zoning district, by Surfrider Plaza, LLC. The application was routed to the City Geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health 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 (MND) 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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 2 of 31 ends

______________________
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, 18-031 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.

H. 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 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.

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.

O. 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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 3 of 31 ends

______________________
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 in 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 of the required findings and conditions of approval.

T. On July 17, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted revised Resolution No. 23-24 under the consent calendar.

U. On February 29, 2024, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

V. On March 25, 2024, the City Council continued the subject item to the May 13, 2024 Regular City Council meeting.

W. On May 13, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Appeal of Action.

The appeal filed by the appellant contends the appeal should be granted and the project application denied based on following alleged issues with the project:

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
Resolution No 24-19

Page 4 of 31 ends

______________________

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
In the associated Council Agenda Report, Planning Department staff analyzed and addressed appellant's contentions.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denying the Appeal.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the content of the Council Agenda Report and Commission Agenda Report, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact, denies the appeal, and approves the project.

The appellant contends that the issues listed in Section 2, and as detailed in the appeal, provide grounds to deny the project. These issues, in summary, include that the findings were not supported by the evidence, the CEQA review as insufficient, the project was not consistent with the General Plan, the project does not conform to applicable regulations, certain additional technical studies were needed, lack of an impartial hearing, and the Planning Commission decision was contrary to law.

A. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the findings made in the Planning Commission’s decision are not supported by the evidence. In summary, the appellant’s objections to the findings for the variances for construction on slopes steeper than 3 to 1 and height of retaining wall, site plan review for height over 18 feet but not exceed 24 feet and conditional use permit. The objections to these findings are mostly due to the contention that the slope qualifies as a bluff, the retaining wall height is a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the vicinity, the height of the building exceeds 24 feet as measured from the grade at the surface parking lot and the rooftop deck and bar is not consistent with the adjacent religious facility and school. The Council Agenda Report elaborates that the slope does not qualify as a bluff because it was formed through natural geological processes, not associated with wave action and does not meet the related definitions for coastal bluff. The retaining wall is similar to other nearby development constructed with similar walls and is necessary to comply with building code requirements. The building height is consistent with the Code and does not exceed 24 feet in height as measured from natural or finished grade, whichever results in a lower building height. The proposed motel use is compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As a result, the findings for the proposed amendment can be made. Findings related to the variance for the retaining wall height are described in more detail in the Commission Agneda Report and summarized in Staff Response to Appeal Item 17. The appellant has not provided evidence that would require denial of the project.

The findings for the project and discretionary requests are made in Section 5 below.

B. City Council 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 City Council, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for the project. The proposed motel project is consistent with General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures as more fully described in the Commission Agenda Report and Council Agenda Report. The reports also describe in detail how the project complies with all applicable code requirements in addition to the requested discretionary requests. The noise and traffic Resolution No 24-19

Page 5 of 31 ends

______________________
associated with the project are less than significant pursuant to CEQA and therefore, technical reports are not required.

C. The Council finds that the Planning Commission conducted the meeting in a manner consistent with the applicable rules of order and provided appellant both notice and an opportunity to be heard in conformance with those standards. The appellant’s have not presented evidence of inappropriate bias, conflict of interest or an unfair or anything but an impartial hearing.

In addition, any such violation would be cured by the de novo hearing held before the City Council.

In conclusion, as detailed above and in the record, the evidence supports the required findings for approval of the proposed project and that it is consistent with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) standards. The evidence also demonstrates a fair and impartial hearing was provided. Additional evidence in the record supports the findings required for the project, as discussed below.

SECTION 4. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council 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, MND No. 20-003 was prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.

On February 19, 2021, the City made IS/MND 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 technical error in posting of the Draft IS/MND with the State Clearinghouse, the public review period 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 City Council 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 City Council, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for the project.

The City Council 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 City Council 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.

SECTION 5. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on May 13, 2024, 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 City Council makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 09-067 for the construction Resolution No 24-19

Page 6 of 31 ends

______________________
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 CV1 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 PCH.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. With the inclusion of the proposed 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 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. 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.

A reduced project, alternate location and commercial shopping center project alternatives were analyzed. Due to required parking, a reduced project alternative does not provide a considerable improvement. One parking space is required for each keyed room. Reducing the number of keyed rooms would reduce the same number of required parking spaces. A reduction of five rooms for example would reduce five required parking spaces, which could not result in a considerable change to the project. There are no alternative locations for the development, placing the development further north would result in an increased development on the slope. Placing the building along the parcel’s frontage would result in a multi-story parking structure along the back with a similar height retaining wall. A commercial shopping center project was previously proposed. The applicant abandoned the commercial shopping center because it required more parking spaces compared to the motel and resulted in a taller retaining wall. Evidence in the record demonstrates alternative projects will not have a significant environmental or visual advantage as comparted to the project; the development is sited within the property dimensions of legal lots and the footprint of existing and is mostly within the previously existing development. As a result, the project, as proposed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

3. As a matter of policy and not a code requirement, ERB reviewed the former project for a commercial shopping center and associated IS/MND and it recommended approval with one condition. 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. ERB did not review the project and IS/MND Resolution No 24-19

Page 7 of 31 ends

______________________
No. 20-003 because the potential environmental impacts of the project were found to be less significant in the environmental documents compared to the former project.

B. Variance for Retaining Wall in Excess of 12 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.26) The variance findings related to ESHA, stringline and public parking are not applicable because the project site does not have any ESHA, is not a beachfront so stringline rules do not apply and the proposed variances will not adversely affect public parking.

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 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, and that the variance requested is the minimal required. 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 IS/MND 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 CV1 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, 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-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 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 8 of 31 ends

______________________
structural setback to the toe of the slope. The proposed retaining wall is necessary for any new building on the subject parcel.

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 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 locating the required 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.

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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 9 of 31 ends

______________________
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 of the 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 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.) and would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance limitations.

3. Story poles were erected, and photo simulations show the design and scale of the proposed development. The photo simulations provide a view of the proposed development from three vantage points. As demonstrated the story pole inspection and in the photo simulations, due to the size, shape, and topography of the 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 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.

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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 10 of 31 ends

______________________

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.

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-1 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-1 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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 11 of 31 ends

______________________

7. Adequate public access is available to serve the Project. Access to the Project is from PCH, an existing public highway. The public, as well as emergency vehicles, would enter and exit the Project Site via PCH. 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 LACFD access requirements.

8. Evidence in the record demonstrates the proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.

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 domestic 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 1, 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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 12 of 31 ends

______________________

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 CV-1 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-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.

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.

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 6. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity.

According to the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity may be required for the overconcentration of licenses. Based on CUP findings in Section 3(G) of this resolution, the City Council 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 City Council 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 7. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council 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 8. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this Project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this Project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the Resolution No 24-19

Page 13 of 31 ends

______________________
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-story, 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;
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. 20-035 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 after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.

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

Resolution No 24-19

Page 14 of 31 ends

______________________

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 Sheriff’s 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 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.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 15 of 31 ends

______________________

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.

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 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 16 of 31 ends

______________________
Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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 Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

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).

31. 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 17 of 31 ends

______________________
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 a.m., 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).

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 motel 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 18 of 31 ends

______________________
at the property located at 22969 PCH (Malibu Inn) to benefit the property located at 22959 PCH (Malibu Inn Motel).

49. The exposed portion of the retaining wall must be treated with realistic faux-rock cladding.

50. Giant Bird of Paradise as shown on the landscaping plans shall be planted in front of the retaining wall to visually screen the portions of the retaining wall above the roofline of the motel building.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

51. The Project shall comply with all the mitigation measures included in the MMRP of IS/MND No. 20-003.

Colors and Materials

52. 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 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.

53. 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.

54. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms 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

55. 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 of request for a site inspection. A staff planner will conduct a site visit to verify 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. Modifying the hours of operation;
Resolution No 24-19

Page 19 of 31 ends

______________________
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.

56. 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.

57. 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 parking demand in excess of the proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the off-site parking area and the subject property.

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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.

62. 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 Check/Department Conditions
Water Quality/Water Service

63. 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

64. The use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance which has the potential to degrade biological resources shall prohibited Resolution No 24-19

Page 20 of 31 ends

______________________
throughout the City of Malibu. The eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration shall consider first the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls. Herbicides may be selected only after all other non-chemical methods have been exhausted. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and use for a limited time.

65. 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.

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

67. 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).

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

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

70. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the WD29.

71. 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.

72. 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).

73. 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.

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

Resolution No 24-19

Page 21 of 31 ends

______________________

75. 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

76. 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.

77. 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 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

78. 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).

79. 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.

80. 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;
Resolution No 24-19

Page 22 of 31 ends

______________________
c. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The Projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of 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.

81. 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).

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

15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS, and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced. Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table

15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a Californialicensed 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 23 of 31 ends

______________________
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.

83. 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.

84. A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder's Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the 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.

85. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)), and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair.

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

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

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

88. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed OWTS after construction shall be submitted. Only original wet signature documents are acceptable and shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 24 of 31 ends

______________________

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

90. The City geotechnical consultant reviewer’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

91. 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 if applicable.

92. 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.

93. 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 (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

94. All recommendations 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.

95. 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

96. 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.

97. The Project must comply with all applicable Caltrans requirements.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 25 of 31 ends

______________________
Grading/Drainage

98. 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.

99. 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;
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. 100. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources. 101. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the Project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to grading or building permit issuance.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 26 of 31 ends

______________________
The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, postconstruction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public street and any drainage easements.

Stormwater
102. 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
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/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. 103. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.

The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.
104. 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;
Resolution No 24-19

Page 27 of 31 ends

______________________
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.

Miscellaneous
105. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
106. 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. 107. 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
108. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 (including tributaries).

Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
109. 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 28 of 31 ends

______________________
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
110. 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. 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
111. 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
112. Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area.
113. Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 29 of 31 ends

______________________
Outdoor Material Storage
114. 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.
115. The storage areas must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. 116. 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
117. 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. 118. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report (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. 119. 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. 120. 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.
121. 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
122. The property owner(s) are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted Project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning approval.

Resolution No 24-19

Page 30 of 31 ends

______________________
123. 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
124. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
125. 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
126. 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, the qualified paleontologist shall provide the construction crew(s) a brief summary 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 notify 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 of the of the discovery until the Paleontologist has assessed the resource.
b. The Paleontologist shall 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. 127. 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 of reducing 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 Resolution No 24-19

Page 31 of 31 ends

______________________
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.
128. 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.
129. 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 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.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th of May 2024.
__________________________________________
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission's approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City's Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

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

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 4.C.

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: Amendments to Chapter 12.02 (Wireless Facilities in Public Right-ofWay) and Chapter 17.46 (Wireless Telecommunications Antennas and Facilities) of the Malibu Municipal Code, and Sections 2.2 and

3.16, Chapter 13 and Appendix 1 (Table B Permitted Uses) of the Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan to modify regulations, procedures, and application requirements for the installation of wireless communications facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to the May 28, 2024 Regular City Council meeting.

City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item

4.C.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: April 25, 2024 Meeting date: May 13, 2024 Subject: Zuma Foundation Inc. Road Race Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Review the status of the Zuma Foundation Inc. 2024 Triathlon event; 2) Consider modifications to the draft Road Race Agreement with Zuma Foundation Inc.; and 3) Provide direction to staff regarding the draft 2024-2028 Road Race Agreement.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: On January 8, 2024, Council awarded Zuma Foundation Inc. one of the two allowable Road Races in accordance City Council Policy #47 - Road Race Policy (Attachment 1) (Policy). The Policy states the City may grant a maximum of two temporary use permits for marathons, triathlons, and cycling events per calendar year.

On April 8, 2024, Council approved a modification to the Agreement regarding insurance requirements requested by Zuma Foundation Inc. The higher limits were required by the City’s insurance provider, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority. Insurance coverage and limits for triathlon events are typically higher than a standard race event, such as a 5K, due to higher-risk exposures, such as swimming and biking. However, the agreement was not signed when City staff were informed by the organizers they intended to breach the agreement.

On April 16, 2024, Michael Epstein, Executive Director of Zuma Foundation Inc., provided staff with a formal written notice that the organization would not hold the triathlon event in 2024 and that the first event would occur in 2025. As part of the Agreement, Section 5.1, Zuma Foundation Inc. has an obligation to conduct a race event City Council Meeting
05-13-24
Item

5.A.
1

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.
commencing in 2024 (Attachment 2). The decision not to hold an event this year represents a breach of the draft Agreement.

Council should consider how it wants to address the Road Race Agreement with Zuma Foundation Inc. in 2024. Options may include:
• Modify the agreement language to allow Zuma Foundation Inc. to not hold an event in 2024. The first triathlon event will take place in 2025. • Decline to enter an agreement with Zuma Foundation Inc. • Consider allowing other groups to hold a triathlon (or another race event) in 2024. • Consider awarding a long-term agreement with another race organizer for the remaining term of the Road Race Agreement. The term of the Agreement with Zuma Foundation Inc. is five years, from 2024 to 2028.

Council may also take other actions to address the Road Race Agreement with Zuma Foundation Inc. Based on Council’s decision, staff will modify the 2024-2028 Road Race Agreement and bring back an item at a future meeting.

ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Policy #47 – Road Race Policy 2) Zuma Foundation Inc. Road Race Agreement
2 City of Malibu
City Council Policy
Policy #47
______________________________________________________________________ Title: Road Race Policy
Purpose: To establish a process for permitting the use of public roadways for non-motorized (walking, running, bicycling) races and events conducted by the private sector that affect residents or use of public resources.

Policy Statement:

This policy is intended to insure the city and its residents have adequate advance notice of any proposed race or related event and the cooperation of the organizers in order to properly plan city services, such as security, sanitation and traffic control, that are required for such an event.

Implementation:

This policy applies to marathons, triathlons and bicycling races or related events requiring the use of public roads in the City of Malibu.

A. Race requirements

1. A City of Malibu Temporary Use Permit is required for all race events;

2. The City may grant a maximum of two (2) temporary use permits for marathons, triathlons, and cycling events per calendar year;

3. Race courses are limited to the section of Pacific Coast Highway between Zuma Beach and the western city limits of Malibu;

4. Race events may only take place the weekend following Labor Day through April 15;

5. Race events may not be held within 30 days of another race event;

6. Race events must be held on Saturdays and/or Sundays, excluding Citydesignated holidays;

7. Race events must take place during daylight hours, between sunrise and sunset;

8. In the event of a “Red Flag Warning” condition, as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, race organizers shall be required to cancel or postpone any race event on the affected days; and

9. The City retains the right to require cancellation or postponement of any race event that risks the health and safety of the racers, spectators, and/or residents due to inclement weather, floods, fire, or other similar circumstances which substantially interfere with the operation of the race event. 3 ATTACHMENT 1
B. Requests that exceed race requirements
In order to exceed the requirements, event organizers are required to submit a completed Temporary Use Permit Application and receive City Council approval of the proposed modifications by adoption of a resolution.

C. Additional application requirements
In addition to the application requirements, the following additional information, submitted to the Planning Division, shall constitute a complete application:

1. An overall race plan which includes:
a. Course route designation;
b. Proposed road and intersection closures;
c. Locations of proposed first aid, water stations and restroom facilities; and d. Location of medical assistance facilities, to be determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

2. Maximum number of participants

3. Traffic and Parking Plan
a. For events on City streets, the plan shall be approved by the City Public Works Department.
b. For events on State highways, the plan shall be approved by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

D. Special Event Encroachment Permit
In addition to the Temporary Use Permit, a Special Event Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the City Public Works Department for any events, including but not limited to setup, race course, staging, and parking, to be located in any City public right-of-way.

E. Interagency permits
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits and permissions from all applicable agencies and jurisdictions. The applicant must comply with all conditions set forth by all applicable agencies and jurisdictions, including but not limited to:

1. City of Malibu Planning Department

2. City of Malibu Public Works Department

3. State of California Department of Transportation

4. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation

5. California Highway Patrol

6. County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
4 ATTACHMENT 1

7. County of Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors

8. County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services

9. County of Los Angeles Fire Department

10. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Date Adopted:

December 10, 2012
5 ATTACHMENT 1

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MALIBU
AND ZUMA FOUNDATION INC.

This Agreement is made and entered into as of ________________, by and between the City of Malibu (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Zuma Foundation Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Zuma Foundation Inc.")
The City and Zuma Foundation Inc. agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A. The City desires to provide recreational events that are of interest and benefit to the residents of the City.

B. Zuma Foundation Inc. produces and conducts running events and triathlons.

C. Zuma Foundation Inc. 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 and Zuma Foundation Inc. have agreed that Zuma Foundation Inc. shall produce and conduct a Triathlon Race Event (as defined herein) within Malibu city limits and outlying areas pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Zuma Foundation Inc. agree as follows:

1.0 INTRODUCTORY TERMS.

1.1 Recitals. The statements contained in the recitals set forth above ("Recitals") are true and correct, and the Recitals are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.

1.2 Exhibits. The exhibits which are attached to this Agreement are by this reference made a part of this Agreement.

1.3 Abbreviations and Definitions. The following abbreviations and definitions will be used for purposes of this Agreement:

1.3.1 The abbreviations of the Parties set forth in the Preamble will be used for purposes of this Agreement.

1.3.2 "Additional City Services" means the following services coordinated and paid by Zuma Foundation Inc. for the Triathlon Race Event, as required by the City Temporary Use Permit, including: (1) law enforcement and fire protection; (2) garbage and refuse disposal; (3) crowd control and traffic control; (4) utilities; and (5) any additional services the City deems appropriate in its sole and absolute discretion.

1.3.3 "City Permit and Use Fees" means the fees and charges imposed by the City in connection with the issuance of permits and the fees and charges imposed by the City 6 Attachment 2
Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 2 of 11 ends

in connection with Zuma Foundation Inc.'s Triathlon Race Event (as defined herein).

1.3.4 "Concessions" means all concessions associated with the Triathlon Race Event (as defined herein) offered or provided for a fee within the Race Facilities and during the Race Period, including, without limitation: (1) alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages; (2) wearing apparel; (3) programs; (4) souvenirs; (5) seating; and (6) all other merchandise or services offered for sale in connection with the Triathlon Race Event and during the Triathlon Race Event Period.

1.3.5 "Laws" means all existing and future federal, state, and local constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and resolutions, and all orders and decrees of lawful authorities having jurisdiction over the matter at issue.

1.3.6 "Race Course" means the staging and routes used by Zuma Foundation Inc. for the Triathlon Race Event as approved through the City Temporary Use Permit Application Process.

1.3.7 " Triathlon Race Event" means Zuma Foundation Inc.'s event, an athletic racing event consisting of swimming, biking, and running a race of a designated distance to be held on:

Year Race Dates
2024 September 14 – 15
2025 September 13 – 14
2026 September 19 – 20
2027 September 18 – 19
2028 September 16 – 17
Set-up begins 5 days preceding the Triathlon Race Event date. All equipment and materials will be removed the day after the race ends.

1.3.8 "Race Facilities" means those lands, improvements, buildings, public or other rights of way, or property, owned, leased to, or controlled by the City or under City authority used by Zuma Foundation Inc. for the purpose of staging the Triathlon Race Event.

1.3.9 "Race Period" means from 7:00 AM on the Monday preceding the Triathlon Race Event until 5:00 PM on the Monday following the Triathlon Race Event.

1.3.10 "Ticket Sale Rights" means the right to sell tickets and otherwise charge for admission to, or for participation in, the Triathlon Race Event, and to sell tickets and otherwise charge for admission to, or for the use of Race Facilities in connection with Triathlon Race Event, excluding the right to sell tickets to the general public that are solely for parking.

2.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement will become effective on January 9, 2024, and will remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from said date unless otherwise expressly extended and agreed to by both parties or terminated by either party as provided herein. 7 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 3 of 11 ends

3.0 CITY AGENT. The City Manager, or their designee, for the purposes of this Agreement, is the agent for the City; whenever approval or authorization is required, Zuma Foundation Inc. understands that the City Manager, or their designee, has the authority to provide that approval or authorization.

4.0 WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Warranties and Representations by Zuma Foundation Inc. Zuma Foundation Inc. warrants and represents to the City as follows:

4.1.1 Zuma Foundation Inc. is a non-profit corporation duly formed, presently existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of California.

4.1.2 All appropriate action exists or has been accomplished by Zuma Foundation Inc. so as to duly authorize the officers set forth below to execute this Agreement and all documents contemplated hereby on behalf of Zuma Foundation Inc. so as to fully and firmly bind Zuma Foundation Inc. to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and such other documents.

4.1.3 Zuma Foundation Inc. has the financial capability to and shall conduct a Triathlon Race Event in accordance with this Agreement.

4.2 Warranties and Representations by City. The City warrants and represents to Zuma Foundation Inc. as follows:

4.2.1 The City is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

4.2.2 All appropriate action exists or has been accomplished by the City so as to duly authorize the officials set forth below to execute this Agreement and all documents contemplated hereby on behalf of the City so as to fully and firmly bind the City to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and such other documents.

5.0 SCHEDULING AND CONDUCTING A Triathlon Race Event

5.1 Obligation to Conduct a Triathlon Race Event. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall produce and conduct a Triathlon Race Event on Saturday and Sunday, commencing in the year 2024, said dates will be determined by Zuma Foundation Inc. no later than March 1 of each year and will be on the dates set forth in Exhibit B or within two weeks of such dates, excluding Labor Day weekends. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall provide the City with written notice in the form of a City Temporary Use Permit Application no later than ninety (90) days prior to the first day of the Triathlon Race Event Period.

5.2 Triathlon Race Event. The Triathlon Race Event shall conduct the Triathlon Course on Saturday and Sunday during the Triathlon Race Event period and shall be 8 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 4 of 11 ends

held during daylight hours only. The Triathlon Race Event shall be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City's Road Race Policy and all necessary governmental permits and/or approvals.

5.3 Set-Up, Operation and Dismantling Periods. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall have the use of the Triathlon Facilities during the Triathlon Race Event Period for purposes of setup of the facilities and apparatus associated with the Triathlon Race Event provided, however, that access to the Triathlon Race Course will only be restricted during the time necessary to conduct the Triathlon Race Event. It is anticipated that all facilities and apparatus associated with the Triathlon Race Event will be set up and dismantled during the Race Period. In the event Zuma Foundation Inc. requires additional time to dismantle the facilities and apparatus following the Triathlon Race Event, Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be permitted such additional time beyond the Race Period, so long as Zuma Foundation Inc. has commenced the dismantling during the Race Period and continues to proceed in a diligent manner to complete the dismantling. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall provide the City with a schedule indicating the dates and location of setup and dismantling of the facilities and apparatus associated with the Triathlon Race Event, along with updates and changes thereto, as soon as is reasonably possible after the necessity for such updates and changes become known to Zuma Foundation Inc.

5.4 Clean-up and Restoration. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be responsible for cleaning up the Race Course and Race Facilities at the end of the Triathlon Race Event. Such clean-up shall include, without limitation, removal of litter and debris from City streets and the Race Facilities.

5.5 Conditions of Race Facilities. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be responsible for promptly returning the Race Facilities to the condition they were in immediately prior to the Triathlon Race Event, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be responsible for repairing any damage to the Race Facilities occurring during the Triathlon Race Event by acts or omissions of Zuma Foundation Inc., its patrons, or concessionaires.

5.6 Additional Municipal Services. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be responsible for the scheduling of and payment for all additional municipal services, as required by the City Temporary Use Permit. In certain circumstances, the City may facilitate the payment for additional municipal services to other federal, state or local governmental agencies. The City’s role in these payments shall only be administrative only (i.e., processing and ensuring the accuracy of the payments) and in no way constitutes the City’s agreement or sign-off on any other services, plans or arrangements provided by other agencies. Thus, the City shall accept no other responsibility other than facilitating the payment and shall have no liability whatsoever from any claims related to Zuma Foundation Inc. and additional municipal services. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall pay the estimated costs and expenses for additional municipal services no later than sixty (60) days prior to the Triathlon Race Event. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall pay any remaining costs for additional municipal services no later than sixty (60) days following the Triathlon Race Event.

5.7 Compliance with Laws and Related Matters. Zuma Foundation Inc., its officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and concessionaires shall comply with all 9 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 5 of 11 ends

applicable Laws throughout the Term of this Agreement.

5.8 Liability for Expenses. Under no circumstances shall the City be liable for any costs or expenses incurred by Zuma Foundation Inc. in any way related to or connected with the Triathlon Race Event unless specifically provided for in this Agreement.

5.9 Authorizations. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be responsible for seeking and obtaining any and all permits, licenses, certifications, consents, or other authorizations required from any governmental agency or other public or private entity in order to hold the Triathlon Race Event and perform all other activities in connection therewith.

5.10 Red Flag Warning. In the event of a “Red Flag Warning” condition as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department or other relevant entity, Zuma Foundation shall either: (i) cancel the Triathlon Race Event or (ii) postpone any race event on the affected days. In the event of postponement, Zuma Foundation shall obtain written authorization from the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, to conduct the race event on other days outside of the days listed above. The Parties shall use their best efforts to reschedule such that it does not impact other events going on in the City or negatively impact the public health and safety.

6.0 GENERAL TERMS.

6.1 Right to Conduct Triathlon Race Event. The City hereby grants to Zuma Foundation Inc. the right to produce and conduct a Triathlon Race Event in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City Council Policy No. 47 (Road Race Policy). Zuma Foundation Inc. is responsible for applying for and securing all applicable governmental approvals/permits in a timely manner, prior to conducting any portion of the Triathlon Race Event or performing any setup activity related to the Triathlon Race Event and complying with the City's Road Race Policy. The City and Zuma Foundation Inc. agree that the Triathlon Race Event is one of the two road race events which are entitled to seek a City Temporary Use Permit each calendar year as set forth in the City's Road Race Policy. All discretionary authority of the City with respect to any and all such permits and/or approvals is expressly retained and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or expanding the City's discretionary authority in any way, or committing the City to any particular decision or outcome, with respect to any requisite permits or approvals. The City's denial of any discretionary permit necessary to conduct the Triathlon Race Event shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement, so long as such denial complies with applicable law and regulation. Zuma Foundation Inc. hereby acknowledges that the City has police powers pursuant to applicable Laws to take reasonable and appropriate action in the event the conduct of the Triathlon Race Event, or any portion thereof or activity associated therewith, is endangering the health, safety or welfare of the general public, is violating any applicable law or regulation, or is otherwise creating a public nuisance. The safety of the Triathlon Race Event participants shall be the sole responsibility of Zuma Foundation Inc.

6.2 Concession Rights. The City hereby grants Zuma Foundation Inc. the right to operate, or to license (in whole or in part) to others, the Concessions associated with the Triathlon Race Event during the Race Period. The City agrees not to hereafter extend any 10 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 6 of 11 ends

Concession rights to any person or entity other than Zuma Foundation Inc. which would permit the operation or licensing of Concessions, or the vending or offering for sale of any goods or services competitive with the Concessions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this grant of rights to Concessions shall not affect the activities of otherwise properly licensed Malibu merchants and business persons in conducting their trade or business during the Triathlon Race Event, or parties with which it has contracted to provide Concessions at any City-owned property or facility.

6.3 Ticket Sale Rights and City Rights. The City hereby grants Zuma Foundation Inc. exclusive Ticket Sale Rights for the Triathlon Race Event.

6.4 Participation. The total number of participants for the Triathlon Race Event shall not exceed: 4,000.

6.5 No Interest in Land. Zuma Foundation Inc. rights pursuant to this Agreement shall not be construed as a lease, easement, or other interest in land, buildings, or other property of the City.

6.6 Donation. Zuma Foundation Inc. agrees to donate not less than $100,000 each year for the term of the Agreement to Malibu youth-based 501(c)(3) community-oriented charitable organizations no later than 60 calendar days after the final event date each year. Zuma Foundation Inc. will seek input from the City each year during the term of the Agreement as to the Malibu youth-based 501(c)(3) community-oriented charitable organization(s) who will receive the annual donation.

Zuma Foundation Inc. agrees that it will identify each benefiting non-profit or community-oriented charitable organization’s specific area or areas that said donation will go towards.

This Agreement and all of its terms, conditions, and provisions is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of Zuma Foundation Inc. and the City and not for the benefit of any other individual or entity. No other person has any right of action of any kind based on any provision of this Agreement nor may any other person be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary under this Agreement.

6.7 Exclusivity. The City will not authorize, without Zuma Foundation Inc.’s permission, any Triathlon Race Event, other than the Triathlon Race Event organized and conducted by Zuma Foundation Inc., sixty (60) days before the Triathlon Race Event or sixty (60) days after the Triathlon Race Event throughout the Term of this Agreement.

6.8 Termination. Either the City or Zuma Foundation Inc. may terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving the other party six (6) months written notice of such termination and the effective date thereof.

6.8.1 If Zuma Foundation Inc. or the City fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if Zuma Foundation Inc. or the City violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, Zuma Foundation Inc. or the 11 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 7 of 11 ends

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. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Zuma Foundation Inc. shall not be relieved of liability for damage sustained by virtue of any breach of this Agreement, and any payments due under this Agreement may be withheld to offset anticipated damages.

6.9 Non-Assignability. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld by the City for any reason the City Council should determine in its sole and absolute discretion. This Agreement and all right and obligations pursuant to the Agreement is/are and shall be binding on Zuma Foundation Inc., and any of its successors or assigns, including any successor by way of merger, consolidation or otherwise, and including any purchaser or acquiror of all substantially all of the assets of Zuma Foundation Inc., or any of its respective successors or assigns (in a any manner identified above); provided, however, that Zuma Foundation Inc.’s rights to pursuant to this Agreement shall automatically terminate if Zuma Foundation Inc. should, without the City’s express prior written consent, consummate a merger, consolidation, asset sale, stock insurance, or other similar transaction by which ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of Zuma Foundation Inc. or its assets should be acquired by a person or entity that is not currently the owner of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of Zuma Foundation Inc.

6.10 Non-Discrimination. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall not discriminate as to race, 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.

6.11 Insurance. The Zuma Foundation Inc. shall submit to the City certificates indicating compliance with the following minimum insurance requirements no less than ten (10) days prior to prior to Triathlon Race Event. The Zuma Foundation Inc. further agrees to comply with all provisions in the attached Exhibit C which is incorporated herein.

6.12 Indemnification. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Zuma Foundation Inc.'s activities related to producing and conducting a Triathlon Race Event hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, regardless of City's passive negligence, but excepting such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should City in its sole discretion find Zuma Foundation Inc.'s legal counsel unacceptable, then Zuma Foundation Inc. shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly understood and agreed that the 12 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 8 of 11 ends

foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.

6.13 Compliance with Applicable Law. Zuma Foundation Inc. 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.

6.14 Independent Contractor. This Agreement is by and between the City and Zuma Foundation Inc. 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 Zuma Foundation Inc.

6.14.1 Zuma Foundation Inc. 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 Zuma Foundation Inc., or any of Zuma Foundation Inc.'s employees, except as herein set forth, and Zuma Foundation Inc. 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 Zuma Foundation Inc. is and shall at all times remain to the City a wholly independent contractor and Zuma Foundation Inc.'s obligations to the City are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement.

6.14.2 Zuma Foundation Inc. shall not use the City Seal or present the Triathlon Race Event as a City-organized event without prior approval from the City.

6.15 Legal Construction.

6.15.1 This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed under the laws of the State of California.

6.15.2 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.

6.15.3 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.

6.15.4 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.

6.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and as so 13 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 9 of 11 ends

executed shall constitute an agreement which shall be binding upon all parties hereto.

6.17 Default. The following shall be deemed events of default ("Default") under this Agreement:

6.17.1 By City. Failure by the City to perform or comply with its obligations or responsibilities hereunder, which is not cured within a reasonable time, but in no event to exceed thirty (30) days following receipt by the City of written notice from Zuma Foundation Inc. specifying with particularity the Default so claimed. The thirty (30) day curative period provided herein may be expanded by so much additional time as is reasonably necessary to cure the Default, provided that the City commences to cure such Default within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently and continuously proceeds to cure the Default.

6.17.2 By Zuma Foundation Inc. Any one or more of the following shall be deemed a Default by Zuma Foundation Inc.:

6.17.2.1 Failure of Zuma Foundation Inc. to perform or
comply with its obligations or responsibilities hereunder, which is not cured within a reasonable time, but in no event to exceed thirty (30) days following receipt by Zuma Foundation Inc. of written notice from the City specifying with particularity the Default so claimed. The thirty (30) day curative period provided herein may be expanded by so much additional time as is reasonably necessary to cure the Default provided that Zuma Foundation Inc. commences to cure such Default within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently and continuously proceeds to cure the Default.

6.17.2.2 Zuma Foundation Inc. attempts to assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City.

6.17.2.3 Zuma Foundation Inc. makes a voluntary assignment for the benefit of its creditors.

6.17.2.4 Zuma Foundation Inc. files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or becomes the subject of an involuntary petition in bankruptcy which is not discharged within sixty (60) days after the filing of such involuntary petition in bankruptcy.

6.18 Waiver; Remedies Cumulative. Failure by a party to insist upon the performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand compliance by such other party in the future. No waiver by a party of a default or breach of the other party shall be effective or binding upon such party unless made in writing by such party, and no such waiver shall be implied from any omissions by a party to take any action with respect to such default or breach. No express written waiver of a specified default or breach shall affect any other default or breach, or cover any other period of time, other than any default or breach and/or period of time specified. All of the remedies permitted or available to a party under this Agreement, or at law or in equity, shall be cumulative and alternative, and invocation 14 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 10 of 11 ends

of any such right or remedy shall not constitute a waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other permitted or available right of remedy. In no event shall either party be liable for any loss of use, loss of time, inconvenience, lost profits or other special, incidental or consequential damages in any way related to or arising from this Agreement or the Triathlon Race Event.

6.19 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.

6.20 Force Majeure. Each Party shall be excused from performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent such performance has been delayed, hindered or prevented by any cause or causes beyond such Party's reasonable control, which shall include, without limitation, labor disputes, riots, civil commotion or insurrection, war, war-like operations or terrorist acts, invasion, rebellion, military or usurped power, sabotage, governmental restrictions, regulations, or controls, inability to obtain any materials or services, fire or other casualties, natural disasters or acts of God. In the event any Triathlon Race Event Facility or portion thereof is destroyed or substantially damaged at any time during the Term of this Agreement by fire, casualty or other cause, the City shall not be required to repair or rebuild such Triathlon Race Event Facilities or portion thereof. If the Race Course is unavailable due to circumstances beyond the City's control, the Parties shall mutually agree in writing on a revised RACE Course approved through the City Temporary Use Permit Application Process.

6.21 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.

6.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the whole agreement between the City and Zuma Foundation Inc., 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 Zuma Foundation Inc.

6.23 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 Zuma Foundation Inc.: Michael Epstein City Manager Executive Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zuma Foundation Inc.
30765 Pacific Coast Hwy #331
Malibu, CA 90265-4861 Malibu, CA 90265
TEL (310) 456-2489 x 224 TEL: (818) 419-4231
FAX (310) 456-2760 [email protected]
15 Agreement between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 11 of 11 ends

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 on 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.

This Agreement is executed on __________________, at Malibu, California, and effective as of ___________________.

CITY OF MALIBU: ___________________________________ STEVE MCCLARY, City Manager ATTEST: ___________________________________ KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk (seal)
ZUMA FOUNDATION INC.: _______________________________ By: MICHAEL EPSTEIN, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23

EXHIBIT B
Zuma Foundation Inc.
2024 – 2028 Race Dates
General Logistics Timeline
Set up will start at Zuma Beach on the Monday prior to race weekend, all week of set up will be confined to the beach and parking lots at Zuma Beach County Property.

Taking place on the Saturday of the event weekend, the Zuma Foundation’s Triathlon for Kids will be fully self-contained inside the Zuma Beach parking lot.

Race packets pick up will take place at Zuma Beach on the Saturday afternoon.

Sunday of each year will feature the Malibu Foundation Sprint and Olympic distance events.

Year Race Dates
2024 September 14 – 15
2025 September 13 – 14
2026 September 19 – 20
2027 September 18 – 19
2028 September 16 – 17
24 EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE LANGUAGE
Without limiting Zuma Foundation Inc.’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work and/or services under this Agreement, Zuma Foundation Inc. 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.

General Liability Insurance. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $7,000,000 per occurrence, $9,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile Liability Insurance. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Zuma Foundation Inc. 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 2,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (statutory limits) and Employer’s Liability insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Zuma Foundation Inc. shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

Athletic Participant Medical Expense Insurance. Zuma Foundation shall obtain and maintain athletic participant medical expense insurance with a $25,000 limit per participant. This coverage should extend to volunteers, event officials if applicable, and other attendees involved in the event who may not be participants.

Sexual Abuse/Molestation Insurance. Zuma Foundation shall procure and maintain sexual abuse and molestation liability coverage in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. This coverage may be part of commercial general liability coverage, professional liability coverage, or a separate policy.

Participant Race Waiver. Zuma Foundation shall include waiving claims against the City of Malibu on all participant race waivers, forms, and documents.

OTHER PROVISIONS OR REQUIREMENTS
Proof of Insurance. Zuma Foundation Inc. shall provide certificates of insurance and required endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates and endorsements 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 25 EXHIBIT C
Zuma Foundation Inc.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Malibu City CouncilMay 13, 2024

Malibu City Council
May 13, 2024