Recycled Paper
BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
Project Address: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 20-068
Project Description: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house Date of Review: June 21, 2021
Reviewer:
Dave Crawford Signature:
Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 6/8/21
Site Survey: 6/8/21
Landscape Plan: 6/8/21
Hydrozone Plan: 6/8/21
Irrigation Plan: 6/8/21
Fuel Modification Plan: 6/8/21
Grading Plan: 6/8/21
OWTS Plan: 6/8/21
Bio Assessment:
Bio Inventory:
Native Tree Survey: 12/29/20 (ESA)
Native Tree Protection
Plan:
Miscellaneous:
Previous Reviews: 1/11/21 (Incomplete)
REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.
APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.
CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.
ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 111
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
June 21, 2021
DISCUSSION:
1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 310,245 gallons per year (gpy). The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 288,519 gpy. Therefore, the project meets the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:
A. No new development is permitted on slopes of 4:1 (25%) or steeper.
B. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.
C. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.
D. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter 9.22). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 9.22. (form attached) E. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.
For approval contact:
Nima Parsa
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check.
F. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height.
G. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). 112
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
June 21, 2021
H. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited.
I. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.
J. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote and copper arsenate.
K. Grading shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 - October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.
L. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.
M. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.
N. New fencing of any single area exceeding ½ acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40 inches high, and have a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.
2. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
113
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheet(s) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
Signature
January 8, 2021
114
&LW\RI0DOLEX
(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWKƔ(QYLURQPHQWDO6XVWDLQDELOLW\'HSDUWPHQW 23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-7650 · www.malibucity.org
T:\Env Health Review Log\Project Review\Zumirez Drive\6734 Zumirez Dr\CDP 20-068\210108_6734 Zumirez Dr_CDP 20-068_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email
address)
Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
Project Address: 6734 Zumirez Drive
)
Malibu, California 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 20-068
,
Project Description: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house g
Date of Review: January 8, 2021
j p ( ) ; ; p ; ; g
Reviewer: Matt Janousek Signature:
y ,
Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 307 Email: [email protected] g
SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Architectural Plans: Warren Garrett: Plans dated 11-20-2020 (received 12-30-2020) Grading Plans: AHSIRT: Plans dated 7-8-2020
( )
Landscape Plans: Girvin Associates: Plans dated 8-14-2020 g
OWTS Plan: Solid Soils and Geologic Consultants: OWTS plan dated 8-2020 p
OWTS and Geology
Report:
Solid Soils and Geologic Consultants: Geologic & Soils Engineering Report dated 8-4-2020
g p
Miscellaneous:
p
Previous Reviews:
REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The listed conditions of Planning stage conformance review and plan check review comments shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.
CONFORMANCE REVIEW INCOMPLETE for the City of Malibu LIP and MMC.
The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.
p p pp
OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
p
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Based upon the project description and submittal information noted above, a conformance review was completed for a new advanced onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) proposed to serve the onsite wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the subject property. The proposed advanced OWTS meets the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project consultants and, prior to final approval, provide a coordinated submittal addressing all conditions for final approval and plan check items.
ouse
[email protected]
115
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
DMW 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
January 8, 2021
T:\Env Health Review Log\Project Review\Zumirez Drive\6734 Zumirez Dr\CDP 20-068\210108_6734 Zumirez Dr_CDP 20-068_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the subject development project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the project OWTS Plot Plan and associated construction drawings (during Building Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.
Conditions of Planning Conformance Review for Building Plan Check Approval:
1) OWTS on Architectural, Grading, and Landscape Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan, Grading Plans, and Landscape Plans must show: (1) the existing OWTS components clearly labeled “to be abandoned”, and (2) the proposed advanced OWTS, including the treatment tank, present/future seepage pits, and all lines of connection from the single-family residence and guest house. The respective plans must clearly demonstrate minimum required setbacks in accordance with Table 15.42.030(E) of the Malibu Municipal Code.
2) Final Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Plot Plan: A final plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The plans must include all 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, existing improvements, and proposed/new improvements. The plot plan must fit on an 11” x 17” sheet leaving a 5” left margin clear to provide space for a City-applied legend. If the plan scale 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” x 22” for review by Environmental Health).
3) Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the OWTS. All plans and reports must be signed by a City Registered OWTS Designer and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).
The final OWTS design submittal 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 (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms.
Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design.
116
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
DMW 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
January 8, 2021
T:\Env Health Review Log\Project Review\Zumirez Drive\6734 Zumirez Dr\CDP 20-068\210108_6734 Zumirez Dr_CDP 20-068_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter, ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and the design basis for engineered systems.
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsf). 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 gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics.
e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). [Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
4) Certified Fixture Unit Worksheets: A fixture unit worksheet showing all existing and proposed bedrooms and drainage fixture units (DFU) must be completed and certified by an Architect, Civil Engineer, Environmental Health Specialist, City Registered Practitioner, or an “A”, “C-42”, “C-36” Contractor License. The bedroom and DFU counts indicated on the worksheet must match the final architectural plans. Please submit separate worksheets for each structure that flows to the OWTS. 5) Existing OWTS to be Abandoned: Final plans shall clearly show the locations of all existing OWTS components (serving pre-existing development) to be abandoned and provide procedures for the OWTS’ proper abandonment in conformance with the Malibu Municipal Code. 6) Worker Safety Note and Abandonment of Existing OWTS: The following note shall be added to the plan drawings included with the OWTS final design: “Prior to commencing work to abandon, remove, or replace existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) components an “OWTS Abandonment Permit” shall be obtained from the City of Malibu. All work performed in the OWTS abandonment, removal, or replacement area shall be performed in strict accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental and occupational safety and health regulatory requirements. The obtainment of any such required permits or approvals for this scope of work shall be the responsibility of the applicant and their agents.” 7) Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 117
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
DMW 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
January 8, 2021
T:\Env Health Review Log\Project Review\Zumirez Drive\6734 Zumirez Dr\CDP 20-068\210108_6734 Zumirez Dr_CDP 20-068_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper 8) Outdoor Drainage Fixture Covers: The final project plans must include details for permanent covers for all outdoor showers and drainage fixtures that flow to the OWTS. 9) Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted. 10) Operations & Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed advanced OWTS.
11) Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed advanced onsite wastewater treatment system shall be submitted prior to Environmental Health approval. Please note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable. 12) Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Covenant: 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 OWTS serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Malibu Municipal Code.
Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Please submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder. 13) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
14) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 15) City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 16) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
17) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
118
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
DMW 20-068
6734 Zumirez Drive
January 8, 2021
T:\Env Health Review Log\Project Review\Zumirez Drive\6734 Zumirez Dr\CDP 20-068\210108_6734 Zumirez Dr_CDP 20-068_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper 18) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
119
120
FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 12/29/2020
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Compliance with the conditions checked below is required prior to Fire Department approval.
The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment ______ The project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review ______ The required fire flow for this project is ________ gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) ______ The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system. ______ Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior to Fire Department Approval ______ Conditions below marked “not approved” shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.
App’d N/app’d
Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width and grade %) as shown from the public street to the proposed project. _____ ______ Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround _____ ______ Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking Access (including grade %) _____ ______ Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates _____ ______
*County of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. **Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. __________________________________ _____________________ SIGNATURE DATE Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.
The Fire Prevention Engineering may be contacted by phone at (818) 880-0341or at the Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday – Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM Rev 04/21/10 mr
X
X
X
X
1,250
C. KENNELLY 8-12-2021
X
X
X
X
121
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road x Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 x Fax (310) 456-3356 x www.malibucity.org
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: May 12, 2021 Review Log #: 4702
Site Address: 6734 Zumirez Drive
Lot/Tract/PM #: Planning #: CDP 20-068
Applicant/Contact: Chris Deleau, [email protected] BPC/GPC #:
Contact Phone #: (818) 338-3636 Fax#: Planner:
Project Type: Demolish existing residence, NSFR, guest house, pool and cabana, storage building, NOWTS.
Submittal Information
Consultant(s) / Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
Solid Soils and Geologic Consultants, Inc. (Sivas, CEG 2565; Simon RCE 82610): 3-26-21, 1-27-21, 8-4-20
Grading & Drainage Plan by Ahsirt Engineering, Inc., Sheets G1 thru G4, dated 7-8-20.
Architectural Plans by Warren Garrett dated 11-20-20.
Architectural Survey by Design Studio, Inc., Sheets A-100 and A-101 7-7-20.
Previous Reviews: 2-24-21, 1-15-21
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The revised residential development project is APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective.
The revised residential development project is NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective.
Building Plan-Check Stage Review
Awaiting Building Plan Check submittal. Please respond to the listed ‘Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.
APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. Please review the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ and incorporate into Building Plan-Check submittals.
NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. Please respond to the listed ‘Building PlanCheck Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.
Remarks
The referenced Architectural and Grading plans as well as the geotechnical report have been reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing residence and guest house, and the construction of new single-family residence with basement, guest house, detached garage, pool (with no infinity edge) and spa, and storage building. The proposed development also includes a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS).
122
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6760) – 2 –
Grading will include 6,840 cubic yards of removal and recompaction (3,420 cubic yard of cut and 3,420 cubic yard of fill), 1,320 cubic yards of exempt understructure cut, 210 cubic yards of safety cut, and 235 cubic yards of non-exempt cut, 280 cubic yards of non-exempt fill. The balance of grading will result in 1,915 cubic yards of export.
Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:
1. Please submit a fee of $1,016.00 to City geotechnical staff for building plan check review.
2. The consultant should discuss and evaluate as necessary the potential for lateral surcharge on basement sidewalls due to adjacent structures/foundations using an appropriate method of analyses (e.g.: 1- Spangler & Handy {1982}, Soil Engineering, fourth Edition, Harper & Row, New York. 2- Navy Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.2, Figures 11 & 12). Using the 1:1 criterion for lateral surcharge is not acceptable unless substantiated by analyses and/or references. Mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary.
3. Please include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil Expansion Index shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations, as necessary.”
4. Please include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil corrosivity shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations”.
5. Please include the following note on the plans, as appropriate: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall prepare an as-built report documenting the installation of the pile foundation elements for review by City Geotechnical staff. The report shall include total depths of the piles, minimum depth into the recommended bearing material, actual depth into the recommended bearing material, and a map depicting the locations of the piles.”
6. Two sets of final grading, retaining wall, swimming pool/spa, tennis court, and residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and wet stamped and manually signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical/Civil Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations and items in this review sheet over the counter at City Hall. Appointments for final review and approval of the plans may be made by calling or emailing City Geotechnical staff.
1. ELECTRONIC PLANS: If final foundation and civil plans are digitally signed and stamped by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as allowed under Board of Registration For Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (2020 PE &PLS Board Rules (16 CCR §§400-476), the Plan Review Letter must contain the following:
x Project description – Address, scope, including structures being permitted (e.g. pool, guest house etc.).
x Plan set information - The date and preparer of the plan set reviewed; this must match the plan set that was submitted to the city for final approval.
x Report references -All applicable geotechnical or coastal engineering reports need to be referenced.
x Approval of specific plan sheets reviewed – List all plan sheets approved, e.g. civil (grading and drainage) as well as structural.
x Licensed Professional signature and stamp - The letter must be signed and stamped by all licensed professionals who signed the reports.
123
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6760) – 3 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.
Engineering Geology Review by: 5/12/21
Christopher Sexton, C.E.G. #1441, Exp. 11-30-20 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by __________________________ 5/12/21 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-21 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.
124
City of Malibu
– GEOTECHNICAL –
NOTES FOR BUILDING PLAN-CHECK
The following standard items should be incorporated into Building Plan-Check submittals, as appropriate:
1. One set of grading, retaining wall, swimming
pool/spa, tennis court, and residence plans,
incorporating the Project Geotechnical
Consultant’s recommendations and items in this
review sheet, must be submitted to City
geotechnical staff for review. Additional review
comments may be raised at that time that may
require a response.
2. Show the address and phone number of the
Project Geotechnical Consultant(s) on the cover
sheet of the Plans.
3. Include the following note on all the Foundation
Plans: “All foundation excavations must be
observed and approved by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of
reinforcing steel.”
4. Include the following note on Grading and
Foundation Plans: “Subgrade soils shall be tested
for Expansion Index prior to pouring footings or
slabs; Foundation Plans shall be reviewed and
revised by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as
appropriate.”
5. Foundation setback distances from descending
slopes shall be in accordance with Section 1808 of
the Malibu Building Code, or the requirements of
the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s
recommendations, whichever are more stringent.
Show minimum foundation setback distances on
the foundation plans, as applicable.
6. The Foundation Plans for the proposed structures
shall clearly depict the embedment material and
minimum depth of embedment for the foundations
in accordance with the Project Geotechnical
Consultant’s recommendations.
7. Show the onsite wastewater treatment system on
the Site Plans.
8. Please contact the Building and Safety
Department regarding the submittal requirements
for a grading and drainage plan review.
Grading Plans (as Applicable)
1. Grading Plans shall clearly depict the limits and
depths of overexcavation, as applicable.
2. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built
compaction report prepared by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the
City for review. The report must include the
results of all density tests as well as a map
depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density
tests, locations and elevations of all removal
bottoms, locations and elevations of all keyways
and back drains, and locations and elevations of
all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. Geologic
conditions exposed during grading must be
depicted on an as-built geologic map. This
comment must be included as a note on the
grading plans.
Retaining Walls (As Applicable)
1. Show retaining wall backdrain and backfill design,
as recommended by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant, on the Plans.
2. Retaining walls separate from a residence require
separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety
Department for permit information. One set of
retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City
for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional
concerns may be raised at that time which may
require a response by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and applicant.
125
PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW
REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:
TO:
City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
DATE: 12/29/2020
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Chris Deleau, Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28118 Agoura Rd. #103
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) SFR; 2nd unit; pool; cabana; demo existing house
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 20-068
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.
The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.
SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
X
Edward Rodriguez January 12, 2021
126
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20-068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper
City of Malibu
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Edward Rodriguez, Associate Civil Engineer
Date: January 12, 2021
Re: Conditions of Approval for 6734 Zumeriz Dr., CDP 20-068 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.
Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway.
The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inch of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.
2. Several existing private improvements are located within the City’s right-of-way, such as (but not limited to) landscaping, railroad ties, fencing. These improvements are required to be removed as part of this project and must be shown on the plans. The applicant shall place notes on the plans for the removal of existing encroachments within the City’s right-of-way.
Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the removal of the private improvements within the City’s right-of-way.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
3. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
x Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
127
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper x Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
x Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources
4. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with the City’s LIP Section
8.3. A note shall be placed on the project that addresses this condition.
5. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
x Public Works Department General Notes
x The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks).
x The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated.
x The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan.
x If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
x If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
x Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
x Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
6. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMP’s shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction 128
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.
7. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.
STORMWATER
8. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
x Installation of permanent BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
x Prohibits the discharge of trash.
x Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading).
x Elimination of non-storm water discharges.
9. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
Erosion Controls Hydraulic Mulch
Hydroseeding
Soil Binders
Straw Mulch
Geotextiles and Mats
Wood Mulching
Sediment Controls Fiber Rolls
Gravel Bag Berm
Street Sweeping and/ or Vacuum
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Scheduling
Check Dam
Additional Controls Wind Erosion Controls
129
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper Stabilized Construction Entrance/ Exit
Stabilized Construction Roadway
Entrance/ Exit Tire Wash
Non-Stormwater
Management
Vehicle and Equipment Washing
Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Spill Prevention and Control
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.
10. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the applicant submitting the required Construction General Permit documents to the State Water Quality Control Board, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs and developed and certified by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California Engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
x Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area.
x Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees.
x Sediment/Erosion Control.
x Controls to prevent tracking on and off the site.
x Non-storm water controls.
x Material management (delivery and storage).
x Spill Prevention and Control.
x Waste Management
x Identification of site Risk Level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit.
x Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to update the ESCP to reflect current conditions, or 130
5 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grading and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.”
11. A State Construction activity permit is required for this project due to the disturbance of more than one acre of land for development. Provide a copy of the letter from the State Water Quality Control Board containing the WDID number prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
12. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development.
The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.
13. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site.
The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
x Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
x Source Control BMP’s
x Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. x Drainage Improvements
x A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
x A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. x The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be 131
6 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/6734 Zumirez Drive/CDP 20- 068/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/6734 ZumerizDrCDP20-068.docx Recycled Paper recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.
14. HYDROMODIFICATION – Alteration or disturbance of streams or natural drainage courses or human-made or altered drainage courses that have replaced natural streams or drainages and serve the same function, shall be prohibited.
x Necessary water supply projects where no feasible alternative exists. x Flood protection for existing development where there is no other feasible alternative. x The improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
MISCELLANOUS
15. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.
16. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
x The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
x There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and x The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
Please include the marked-up set of plans with your next submittal. Also, please include a comment response letter with your next submittal that addresses the above-mentioned items. Failure to submit a detailed comment response letter will result in the Public Works Department not accepting your re-submittal and or may result in additional plan checking fees. 132
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 11:50 PM
To: Lisa Hilton
Subject: RE: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for your comment and sorry for the late response on this. I am looking into the view corridor issue and will get back to you soon.
Part of the review is assessing for impacts to protected views from Primary View Determinations of nearby residences.
The proposed project is not anticipated to obstruct any of these privately protected views.
Zumirez Drive is not a scenic road as indicated in the Citys Local Coastal Program, and as such, it has not traditionally been subject to the Citys view corridor requirements. Never the less, I am ensuring that view corridor requirements do not apply to this project.
I will be in touch soon with a final determination but please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
From: Lisa Hilton
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 8:22 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Exhibit F
133
2 134
3 135
4 136
Tyler Eaton
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Lisa Hilton
Subject: RE: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Hi Lisa,
Private properties with a Primary View Determination (PVD) registered with the City are usually more protected, especially against vegetation. We also try to protect public views to the maximum extent feasible. I did check for homes nearby with a PVD and none look to be affected by the proposed development. The project will be conditioned to maintain vegetation heights and much of the existing vegetation in the middle of the property is being removed or mitigated which could improve visual conditions.
You definitely have a say in the matter and I will share your correspondence with the Planning Commission, who makes the ultimate decision on the proposed development. You can also attend the Planning Commission meeting if you would like to speak. This item is scheduled for the August 1 meeting and will be held at 6:30pm.
I am still looking into the view corridor issue.
Tyler
From: Lisa Hilton
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 11:42 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coastal permit for 6734 Zumirez Drive
Thank you Tyler for your response.
So I understand that you are saying that only some properties have protected view rights, and our property and our neighbors dont have those rights on this project and we have no say if someone blocks a view with tall trees/home/garage or wall?
My understanding was that in Malibu you cant block another neighbors view completely, but thats more just a good neighbor concept? It does seem that a view corridor could be created and still allow for a fab home, landscaping and an exterior wall. It would be unfortunate to loose the sunrise Tyler.
Thank you for checking on this.
Sincerely,
Lisa
On Jun 29, 2022, at 8:22 PM, Lisa Hilton wrote:
137
Hello Tyler Eaton/Malibu City Planning,
I have notified the owner of this property twice that their home and trees are obstructing on coastal views. Now that the story poles are up it is easy to see that the sunrise and ocean view will be 100% blocked. The homeowner could easily situate the home off on the left side and still have an amazing view and still keep a view corridor on the right side for others.
Although this view is from my property, it would also affect other homes near by. This is a popular walking street too, so anyone walking would also have the view blocked.
Thank you for considering this,
Sincerely,
Lisa Hilton
<Neighbor's story poles show view will be blocked as well as trees blocking our view 9:21:22.jpeg><IMG_7559.jpeg>
138
Tyler Eaton
From: eric zicklin
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Tyler Eaton
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr. (4466-002-001)
Hi Tyler,
I just learned that the structure in our view will have a HOT TUB ON THE ROOF. This means that the top of the current story poles represent merely the FLOOR of the deck that will occupy that roof.
Is this within the citys rules vis a vis the view corridor? It certainly changes the exposure my house has to that structure when theres a hot tub on the roof.
Im now more concerned than my earlier email indicated.
Thank you for your consideration, I hope to hear from you soon, Eric
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 4:40 PM eric zicklin wrote:
Thank you for your response.
Its actually not the oversized height thats in our view, but rather the proposed single story structure at the propertys southeastern edge (nearest to Paradise Cove) that is now with story poles and orange tape highly visible inside our living room and out on our deck.
No vegetation obscures it and I fear that new vegetation will block more of our view.
An entire side of the proposed structure (the wall that would, if built, face Paradise Cove) is in our view and will be prominent if built as indicated by those poles and orange tape. Its unclear if there will be windows which look at our deck and vice versa, but that would also be objectionable to me.
Ill attach a photo here, please zoom to the right
. And then let me know what you think?
Thank you, I hope to hear from you soon,
Eric Zicklin
139
140
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:07 PM Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I see you have a primary view determination on file with the City. While reviewing, I could not tell if the proposed additions at 6734 Zumirez will impact the PVD photos. It looked like existing vegetation might block the development from view.
We try to preserve your protected views to the maximum extent feasible. They are allowed to build up to 18 feet on their property but some of their development is proposed to be up to 24 feet tall. If the portions above 24 feet are impacting your view then I will try to work with the applicant to redesign those portions.
Are there any pictures you can send to me?
Thanks,
From: eric zicklin
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 9:01 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr. (4466 002 001)
141
Hello Tyler Eaton,
I received in the mail a notice of public hearing about the development of 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu. Unfortunately, the view from my living room and its deck at now include the story poles of 6734 Zumirez Dr, blocking a part of our view of the ocean and hillside.
Can you help me understand the rules or regulations about problems like this? Im not eager to slow my neighbors work, but I am eager to learn the rules.
I hope you can help me, or direct me to someone who can.
Thank you,
Eric Zicklin
142
Planning Commission
From: Zicklin Family < >
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Objection to 6734 Zumirez
Attachments: 6734 Zumirez - Planning Commission.pdf
Hello Rebecca Im sending you an objection to the real estate development at 6734 Zumirez. Please share it with the planning commission. Thank you for all your time and attention, Eric Zicklin 09/12/22
143
144
145
146
147
148
Tyler Eaton
From: Ryan Levis
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Tyler Eaton; Kraig Hill; John Mazza; Dennis Smith; Jeffrey D Jennings; Mark Wetton Cc: Scott Halley; Howard M. Bernstein
Subject: From Ryan Levis Architect Re CDP 20-068 - 6734 Zumirez Dr.
Dear Tyler Eaton & City of Malibu Planning Commission Members, We hope you are all well and thank you in advance for your attention to this email.
We represent the owner of 6728 Zumirez Dr.
We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing (photo attached) for the subject CDP application and are witness to the story poles that are erected on the subject site, the neighbor to the south, at 6734 Zumirez Dr. (photos attached).
As you can see by the photos, the proposed new construction at 6734 Zumirez Dr., as represented by the story poles, blocks the significant and scenic bluewater views from the main living area presently enjoyed by the homeowner at 6728 Zumirez Dr.
It would appear that not only are the maximum 18' high sections of the building in violation but so are the higher sections.
We are kindly requesting your presence at the 6728 Zumirez Dr. property to review this condition.
Please let me know if there is any mutually convenient time (or times) to coordinate this so we may notify the owner and possibly meet you there as well.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards,
Ryan
Forwarded message
From: Ryan Levis
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:21 AM
Subject: Re CDP 20 068 6734 Zumirez Dr.
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Halley
Good morning Tyler,
I represent the owners at .
149
I went to the City yesterday and filed a public records request to see the plans associated with the subject CDP application. I was told the records could take as much as two weeks to retrieve. This is too long because according to the notice, the project will be heard at the Monday August 1st Planning Commission hearing. As a first request, would you be able to pull the records and meet with me sometime soon to review them? Regardless, as you can see by the attached pictures, my clients scenic blue water views from their main living area are affected by the proposed construction as noted by the story poles.
In addition to meeting regarding the drawings, could we please meet at the site of my client at to see this in person?
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Thank you,
Ryan
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
Tyler Eaton
From: jaime harnish
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Tyler Eaton; Eric Zicklin; Janet Friesen; scott halley Subject: Fwd: Zumirez
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: jaime harnish
Date: February 16, 2023 at 6:08:28 PM PST
Subject: Zumirez
Please see the proposed house from the public beach.
167
Please see the perennial stream wit riparian habitat.
168
169
170
171
Sent from my iPhone
172
173
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: Objecting to Home at 6734 Zumirez
Another for 4B
From: Paul Taublieb <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 7:44 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc:
Subject: Objecting to Home at 6734 Zumirez
03/06/23
174
From: Planning Commission
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: Fw: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development OPPOSITION Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:30:52 PM
From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
Subject: FW: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development
OPPOSITION
From: Mari Stanley <
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Public Comment 3/6/23 Mtg - Agenda 4B - 6734 Zumirez Dr New Development
OPPOSITION
I forgot what the width of our street is but I well remember that it is the most narrow in relation to the number of homes on the street. Could Planning Mgr or staff member clarify that this evening please? There may be a few other narrow lanes or gated streets such as in gated complexes but none other have the access to the beach that is critical to maintaining a clear thoroughfare for emergency response vehicles at all times, all hours.
Thank you!
Mari Stanley
FYI but of course I had hours stolen to have added my own avg size of residence to strengthen my Neighborhood Character claim. They have to know that it's the most narrow street but I think I'll have to send a follow up to ask them to clarify it with Planning staff...
Mari
3/6/2023
175
Dear Commissioners,
I want to strongly stress the danger of our street in width and in particular with the frontage area of this proposal and surrounding area. Zumirez is a No Parking street in entirety with clear signage displayed, the development is not only large scale it must fully accommodate visitor and service visits fully within it's own property or seek parking arrangements off site and off street elsewhere DURING CONSTRUCTION as well as after completion of any approved permits that may be achieved. The 6734 property cannot have parking on Zumirez Dr. in the vicinity of the project, period. The location is on a curve that creates visual issues for traffic flow and any parking of vehicles that bring workers, site mgr's or architects and supporting overseers would severely clog the street creating extreme safety disadvantages. It also sits close to the beach gate entrance which serves the residents as a privately owned lot and in that manner we provide access to Emergency Service vehicles as a public service to the community and envelope the California Wildlife Rescue services up to Pt Dume Headlands. We cannot tolerate any potential blocking of the street that would occur if parking is not addressed this evening and made a condition of any permit approvals. I will not tolerate individual development rights to ride over the Public Safety rights of others including visitors that access the sand from Paradise Cove or the marine mammals and other wildlife that are protected by law. This does have precedence given the enforcement actions taken against another development a few driveways from 6734 at which time a very limited few city issued temporary parking permits were allowed for one side of the street only.
All other parking was sourced off Zumirez with transportation provided by developer. Given that 6734 sits squarely on the curve, I ask that there should be zero parking on the street to preserve Public Safety at a maximum. We have other properties on our street in the process of planning and we cannot have our street become a place with no ingress or egress during working hours. I am very protective of our neighbors to the beach side as many well know, original homeowners and former school Principle who is unable to speak on this matter so I will be speaking for him and his lovely wife - they must have the right of public access for emergency vehicles given the length of time of the anticipated construction eating away at their remaining years left on Earth. I've notified them and their extended family that I will do all that I can to insure their safety and I hold the Planning Commission responsible if this is not taken into consideration this evening. All of us on Zumirez will be impacted by the construction noise and dirt although it's the Merriman's peace of mind that I am most concerned for and seek for them to be respected by the current owners of 6734 with full acceptance of my request to require all construction vehicles and deliveries done on site or to arrange for an off site area to minimize the impact of noise, dust, fumes and rumbling of engines for the hearing issues of Mr. Merriman (his hearing loss enhanced his other senses, heightening sound wave impacts) and Mrs. Merriman's own age related issues. These people are true 176
treasures of Malibu, please ensure that the developers treat them with full respect so that we can continue to enjoy seeing them out on the street to enjoy their day or visit neighbors.
I'll also bring up the fact that the house currently sited on 6734 is one of the smaller residences on the street and the home being proposed will fundamentally alter the current Neighborhood Character - going from one of the smallest to arguably one of the largest yet it is not in line with the other properties given the lot size. I'm removing the bluff top properties from this assessment given that the construction of 6830 was presented as a measurement in line with other nearby blufftop properties and residents well remember the city's embrace of the arguments poised by those land planning consultants that achieved the gains sought. I do not see the 6734 site as a bluff top property definition and yet it seems to be trying hard to grow into a bluff top property by it's commanding presence as the far edge of the property that will create light pollution into the gully and across to the residents of Paradise Cove MHP as well as immediate neighboring properties. The height alone makes the proposal a daunting facade and will be easily visible from the sand which may be a safety hazard to the owners given the ease of access through the vegetation to the back of the property and thereby endangering all of the other properties along the back side of Zumirez facing eastward. I prefer that our neighbor properties safety be better protected with a less obtrusive and 'inviting' presence, specifically seeing that the second story will be a deck affording everyone noise and act as a potential attractive nuisance with the Summer crowds that we've been dealing with in past years.
I now want to speak in support of our neighbors that are opposing this project for very good reasons, height/noise/light pollution/setbacks. Both my husband and I stand firmly with the Zicklins, the Penn's, the Friesen's and now I understand the Hilton's also have been vocal of their concerns.
We add our voices to them all and specifically Ms. Friesen given the way the project before you will be looking directly into the Friesen home and backyard - looming over it actually. Their backyard would become an open theater of sorts with all actions normally afforded a family residence on full display. The noise from the rooftop deck will literally fall on the roof and into the yard from simple daily life to say nothing of having any company or a party held at 6734. The Penn property suffered the loss of the matron and that should not be translated to a reduced ownership or reduced rights, I am hopeful that there will be a strong representation this evening and if not we'll just grow more support on the street in memory of Eileen and Leo if/when the project appears before Council. It appears to be designed to take a lot from from neighbors to enrich the one property and that cannot be allowed to proceed without adding my concerns for the people that I call 'chosen family' for the years of coming together in fires, storms, road closures and for all the good times that we've enjoyed - thankfully more of the good stuff than the OMG stuff. This project before 177
you tonight fits more into the OMG category in my view. The development is an obvious flip project as the owners are said to have fully admitted, can't help myself as I don't think a project should be built that consumes all of the available building space and leaves no future owner any room to personalize their home to their tastes. People don't consume alcohol as much as they used to, that wine cellar may be a negative aspect more than an amenity to future buyers...just one aspect of my judging the layout and sneer at the obvious grasping of profits with no qualms as to who is devoured in the consumption of wonderful land that has been kindly treated for generations. We consider ourselves very fortunate to have known the previous owners or two generations of that lovely family.
Beautiful people that helped to shape Malibu, it's sad that someone seeks to unravel all of the good faith that has been rooted in the lot for profits - the prostitution of Malibu is one ugly business.
When will we see better controls of development and the variances that are sought? I think the pushing-the-maximum-to-see-what-theycan-win-mentality is worth sneering at and I ask that all planners involved, planning dept supervisors, manager as well as administrative management at City Hall begin to capture and analyze the estimated costs of city labor in researching the variances and presenting them for review by outside agencies (more public monies consumed!) and Planning Commissioners (free labor but valuable time invested in the community by strong individuals who embrace our Mission AND Vision Statement) - we're being used and we should not take it lying down anymore. Reducing costs is paramount to insure that all of us receive the maximum Public Benefit for the expenditure of Public Funds, far more important to the City's health than to suffer our city staff having to cater to developers and hired land use consultants 'wish lists'! I believe that the burn out that is said to be impacting our planners is in large part for feeling like they are doing worthless work they can't even support but there it is because some are playing with our codes and our staff like game pieces.
Thank you for your time this evening and for all of the hours spent reviewing the agenda items this evening,
Mari Stanley
6XXX Zumirez Dr. (opposite of 6734 - I mourn the potential loss of the small view corridor that we have to check weather and road conditions down coast)
178
Planning Commission
Jason Ernst
Fw: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:37:49 PM
image001.png
From: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Thank you Rebecca.
From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Matt,
Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Commissioners for their consideration.
Rebecca Evans, Recording Secretary
From: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Road—Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 [JMBM-LA.82538.0001] Dear Planning Commission Staff and Mr. Eaton—
Please see attached correspondence on Item 4B (6734 Zumirez Drive/Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068) for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Please also forward this submission to the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you,
Matthew D. Hinks | Partner
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067 D: (310) 201-3558 | F: (310) 203-0567
VCARD | BIO | BLOG | LINKEDIN
3/6/2023
179
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 180
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ([email protected]) 181
Views from Paradise Cove Beach are irrelevant.
see also
i.e.
Schneider v. California Coastal Comm’n
Schneider
Id.
Id.
Id. unwritten policy to protect scenic views
of the coast from offshore Id.
Schneider
182
The Municipal Code does not regulate view impacts from structures below 18 feet.
excludes
See City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court
Land Waste Mgmt. v. Bd. of Supervisors
ultra vires
The Project is plainly subject to a Class 3 Categorical Exemption.
Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of
Berkeley
183
184
1 Rebecca Evans
From: jaime harnish >
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Please submit
Thank You.
Sent from my iPhone
03/06/23
185
03/03/23
186
2 From: jaime harnish >
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 1:04 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; ; Eric Zicklin < >; dottie zicklin >; Ryan Levis >; scott halley >
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez dr.
Hi Tyler, I understand from Don Schmidts that the has a letter submitted to the file from a neighbor who supports the project. Can you please send us a copy of that letter or email so we can see who it is and what address their property is at. I believe that it could be a neighbor friend who has no impact from the project. perhaps on the other side of the road. I believe this letter is of public record.
Thank You Tyler
JAIME HARNISH
P.O. BOX 6363
Malibu, CA. 90264
29178 Heathercliff rd.
Malibu, CA. 90265
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 11:12 AM
To: jaime harnish
Subject: Automatic reply: 6734 Zumirez dr.
Out of the office until Monday. Contact [email protected] for general inquiries.
Thank you,
Tyler Eaton
187
1 Planning Commission
From: Cooper Kass <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:10 PM
To: Planning Commission; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Frank Angel; Lake McManus
Subject: Item 4B Janet Friesen/Angel Law Comment Letter Attachments: 2023-03-06 Malibu Planning Commission comment letter.pdf Dear Planning Commission Sta & Mr. Eaton,
On behalf of Janet Friesen, please see a ached Angel Laws comment le er on Item 4B (6734 Zumirez Drive/Coastal Development Permit No. 20 068) for tonights Planning Commission mee ng. Please also forward this submission to Dennis Robert Smith, John Mazza, Kraig Hill, and Je rey Jennings.
Thank you,
Cooper Kass _______________ Cooper Kass, Esq. | Associate Attorney Office: (310) 314-6433
Direct: (310) 314-6473
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Angel Law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
03/06/23
188
A N G E L L AW
2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 - 5 2 6 9
T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 - 6 4 3 3
a n g e l l a w . c o m
March 6, 2023
City of Malibu
Attn: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Via Email to [email protected]; [email protected] Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 and
CEQA Exemption for 6734 Zumirez Drive Project
Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Eaton:
On behalf of Janet Friesen, the immediate neighbor to the south of the project proposed at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project), we object to approval of the Project as designed and sited, and we take issue with several conclusions made in the February 23, 2023 Commission Agenda Report (Staff Report), in regard to consistency with the Malibu Local Costal Program (MLCP) and the proposed categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) We request that the Planning Commission deny Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 and the CEQA exemption. We request that the City prepare and circulate an initial study under CEQA, not the least to address the MLCP issues and environmental impacts specific to this blufftop development.
Coastal Bluff Determination
The Land Use Plan component (MLUP) set back
from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion for a projected 100 year
(MLUP Policy 4.27.) The 50 feet
if recommended by the City geologist and the 100 year economic life with the geologic safety factor 189
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
(Id.) Thus, in order to determine a new
make a determination as to what
Importantly, last month, the Local Implementation
Plan (MLIP) provides a detailed definition of what constitutes a bluff edge in situations where a i are not clean cut Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing (LIP, § 2.1.) The Staff Report does not acknowledge this definition, nor does it attempt to calculate the bluff edge relative to the subject property.
It is apparent from several pictures included in the Staff Report and looking up at the Project site from the beach below (at the mouth of an unnamed creek) that the site sits atop a bluff curve, part of the bluff directly facing the Pacific Ocean. (See Staff Report at pp. 140, 162, 165-166, 169-170.) The Staff Report dismisses this particular geomorphology in one sentence, stating reviewed geotechnical reports and checked with City geotechnical consultant reviewers and determined that the area of concern, the eastern facing down-sloping portion of the property, is not considered either a coastal or (Staff
Report at pp. 4-5.) However, the City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet attached to the Staff Report (Staff Report at pp. 116-119), completed by Engineering Geology Reviewer Christopher Sexton and Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer Ali Abdel-Haq, does not even mention the word Further, the Staff Report does not provide
reports supposedly substantiating -a- determination.
The Staff Repor specific reference to any geotechnical report Soils & Geologic Consultants, dated August 4, 2020, January 28, 2021, March 26, 2021, and May 12, 2021, and that reference only , which does not
address the bluff determination as required by the MLCP. (Staff Report at p. 17.) There is simply nothing before the Commission, aside from the one conclusory sentence quoted above, to -a- . The Staff Report conc
described in this report, including the project site, the scope of work and substantial evidence in the LIP Chapter 10 (the Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance) is not applicable to the Project. What reasons? What substantial evidence? The record contains no MLCP-specific analysis, no explanatory graphics, and nothing in the way of Coastal Commission bluff determination guidance as to how this critical -a190
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
By making this unexplained determination, the Staff is allowing the Project to skirt the M Chapter 10 Required Findings and Analysis (LIP, § 10.3) and Development Standards (LIP, §
10.4). This is an issue especially as concerns the site planning for the pool, pool deck, outdoor dining, outdoor lounge, jacuzzi and fire pit components of the Project, all potentially located in the bluff face descending to the creek, as shown on this excerpt from the project plans:
191
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Hillside Development Standards
The Staff Report downplays Mr. Jamie Har questions regarding the stream at the bottom of the subject property and the riparian habitat by citing the M of streams in the Point Dume area: New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation development shall be
(Staff Report at p. 6; LIP, § 4.6.1(A).) The Staff Report proposed project avoids 4 to 1 -coded slope analysis and
geology reports submitted for the project
geology reports before the Commission and the public. However, a one-page color-coded slope overlay, referred to as a , attached to the staff report. (Staff Report at p. 48.) It shows the Project in two colors: Yellow for areas flatter than 4:1, and Green for areas 4:1 and steeper.
But there is no actual analysis explaining how the two categories of gradients (4:1 slope and steeper; gentler than 4:1 slope) were determined and calculated. There is no slope worksheet.
There is no to-scale slope projection, i.e., cross-section showing the total slope area that was considered. There is no determination of the bluff or slope edge, i.e., the upper elevation of the onsite slope area. There is no specification of the horizontal distance (the run) between the contour lines. These omissions are highly problematic given that a substantial portion of the proposed development, including pool and pool deck areas, are sited in the slope below the 10 elevation, . Looking at the contour lines on the project plans and the run from the contour line or to the lowest onsite elevation mapped, it appears that the onsite slope area has a gradient steeper than 25%, if not 30%.
Furthermore, the Staff Report ignores significant slope-related parts of Chapter 6 of the MLIP, a Chapter which admittedly is applicable to the project. (Staff Report at p. 9.) In its section entitled Hillside Resource Protection (M fails to
discuss the hillside at all. It states
governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. (Staff Report at pp. 16-17.) . The
development standards of this chapter
6.2.) By failing to identify, or rule out, Project areas with slopes over 20%, the Staff Report fails to address .
192
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Scenic and Visual Resources Determination
The Staff Report admits that MLCP
designated scenic area discusses the five required findings of MLIP Section 6.4. (Staff Report at pp. 16-17.) In its findings, the Staff Report claims beach, there will be no impacts to views of the Santa Monica Mountains Additionally, it claims -family residence will not significantly impact public views of the Pacific Ocean and is not anticipated to block views of the Santa Monica Mountains P
conformance to sensitive resource policies. (Staff Report at p. 17.) However, because the Staff Report makes these claims without supporting analysis, the claims are entirely conclusory and unsubstantiated. MLIP Section 6.4 states explicitly that the required the specific project impacts relative to the applicable development standards identified in Section 6.5 of the Malibu LIP 6.4(A).) The Staff Report does not mention these development standards.
The Staff Report acknowledges Mr. Ryan -site the proposed development 35 feet closer to the street in order to keep it in line with the existing development on the same side of the street. P ity
from Paradise Cove Beach, an MLCP designated scenic area. But the Staff Report again discards possible solutions with the and
e proposed development to be in line
(Id.)
In actuality, MLIP Section 6.5 minimize
adverse impacts on scenic areas from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum proposed project site where development would not be visible, then the development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on scenic areas from scenic highways or public viewing areas, through measures including, but not limited to, siting development in the least visible portion of the site, breaking up the mass of new structures, designing structures to blend into the natural hillside setting, restricting the building maximum size, reducing maximum height standards, clustering development, minimizing grading, incorporating landscape elements, and where appropriate, berm Id.)
Under the MLUP, Paradise Cove Beach is not only a designated scenic area, but also a public viewing area MLUP Policy 6.2.) Thus, the view from
Paradise Cove Beach in the area of the mouth of the creek towards the scenic Santa Monica 193
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
Mountains area is impacted by the Project as stated above, the Staff Report admits the P visibility from Paradise Cove Beach. Then, under MLIP Section 6.5, the development is required to minimize those impacts, and MLIP Section 6.5 explicitly offers measures by which a project can do so. These measures are not supposed to remain dead letters.
Class 3 Categorical Exemption from CEQA Inapplicable
We disagree that the Class 3 categorical exemption the Staff Report cites, set forth in State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15303, subdivisions (a) and (e) applies to the Project.
Categorical CEQA exemptions are reserved for es of projects which have been determined And CEQA exemption
categories must be construed narrowly are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 209, 226.) The introductory language of Guidelines section 15303 makes clear that the Class 3 exemption applies only to th small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of th (Emphasis added.)
Parts of the Project are designed to be 24 feet in height 18-foot height limit. The P TDSF) is 7,727 square feet, just short of the maximum 7,760 square feet allowed for this lot. The proposed two-story singlefamily residence with attached garage covers 6,794 square feet on its own. Table 2 of the Staff Report (see Staff Report p. 8) lists four other single6728 Zumirez Drive, 6725 Zumirez Drive, 6747 Zumirez Drive, and 6744 Zumirez Drive.
Respectively, the residence areas of these four properties amount to approximately 3,116 sq. ft., 2,981 sq. ft., 766 sq. ft., and 2,365 sq. ft. Even cherry-picking the largest of those four, the Project dwarfs it. The proposed swimming pool (62.67 ft. by 18.67 ft.) spans approximately 1,170 square feet. It alone (the pool!) would be larger than one of the adjacent homes.
The Project vastly exceeds the Class 3 categorical exemption for small structures.
Conclusion
We have herein documented analytical deficiencies and unsupported conclusions in regard to the P compliance with the MLCP. We have also explained how the Project is much too large to reasonably qualify for a Class 3 categorical CEQA exemption. It would 194
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Planning Commission
March 6, 2023
therefore be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 for the current Project design and the site planning in relation to the bluff or onsite slope area. Additionally, unless Project size is substantially reduced to support application of the Class 3 categorical exemption, all proposed development must undergo CEQA review before progressing any further. At a minimum, the City must prepare and circulate for public review an initial CEQA study. (See Guidelines, § 15063.)
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
Frank Angel
cc: Dennis Robert Smith, Chair
John Mazza, Vice Chair
Kraig Hill
Jeffrey Jennings
195
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:14 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: From Josh Brolin re: 6734 Zumirez Dr Build From: JB >
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: From Josh Brolin re: 6734 Zumirez Dr Build
Dear Richard and Tyler,
First of all, I hope this finds you both well.
It has been brought to my attention that the letter of support I signed for Jason Rouse's build on 03/06/23
196
2 197
1 Planning Commission
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Schmitz and Associates
Subject: Letter of Support for Item 4.B. March 6, 2023 PC hearing: (CDP 20-068) 6734 Zumirez Attachments: Brolin Support Ltr.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom it may concern: Please see the attached letter of support from one of our client's neighbors, Mr.
Josh Brolin.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the senders written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn t happen in the future and delete the message. 02/28/23
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
to, Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu Road, Broad Beach
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
as measured from the existing natural grade or
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
as measured from the existing natural grade or
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Jason Ernst
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Don Schmitz; Tyler Eaton
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Hi Don,
Trying for the first meeting.
Richard
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez May sounds good Richard, thank you! First or second hearing? Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617 0773 | Office: (818) 338 3636
[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse ; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg ; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Hi Don,
282
We expect this to go before the Council in June. The reason for that is that is that we are taking applications in order that they are complete, and we already had a number of appeals on the Councils calendar.
But yes, there is not much that will change if any in our write up.
Richard
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse ; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg Scott Hoeft
<[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Status of scheduling the City Council hearing for 6734 Zumirez Good morning gentlemen;
I am writing to inquire on the City Council hearing date for the above mentioned project. As Im sure you will recall, the Planning Commission was deadlocked 2 2, took no action, and the city attorney advised us and the public that the matter needs to go directly to the City Council. The project has been thoroughly analyzed, and the staff report is already drafted and comprehensive, so it would seem to be a simple matter of changing the title page with a brief description of what happened at the planning commission and getting the matter to the council.
I want to take a moment to thank you for the detailed analysis and recommendation on this project, and we look forward to getting this wrapped up soon at the city council.
Please do let us know what our hearing date is.
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617 0773 | Office: (818) 338 3636
[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com 283
284
285
A N G E L L AW
2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 - 5 2 6 9
T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 - 6 4 3 3
a n g e l l a w . c o m
April 11, 2023
Trevor L. Rusin
Malibu City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger
One California Plaza
300 S. Grand Ave,
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Via Email to [email protected]
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 (6734 Zumirez Drive) Dear Trevor:
As you know, Angel Law represents Ms. Janet Friesen, one of several objectors on Zumirez Drive to the single-family residential development proposed by IBN Properties, LLC at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project).
On March 6, 2023, the Malibu Planning Commission heard the application for a coastal development permit (CDP) for the Project. The Project applicant failed to garner a majority of at least three votes necessary to obtain approval of the CDP. The Planning Commission was deadlocked 2:2.
As explained below, California law treats a tie vote on a CDP application as action effectuating denial of the CDP. (REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 596, 607.) No rule in the laws that govern CDPs in the City of Malibu (City) -- the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the Malibu Local Coastal Program (MLCP) -- says otherwise.
Hence, if the applicant disagrees with the Planning Commission’s action, it was incumbent upon them to appeal that action to the City Council. The applicant neglected to do so. As further 286
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
explained below, the applicant’s failure to appeal leaves the City Council without jurisdiction to review or act upon the CDP application for the Project.1 The Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (MLIP) makes clear that, except for administrative or emergency permits, which the Planning Director may decide in the first instance, the Planning Commission is responsible for deciding all CDPs in the first instance, subject to appeal to the City Council (and the Coastal Commission). (MLIP, §§ 13.7, 13.20.1 (A).) Any “aggrieved person” may appeal. (Id., § 13.20.1 (A).) Alternatively, the City Council itself may appeal, upon the affirmative vote of at least three of its members. (Id., § 13.20.1 (H).) “An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days following the date of action for which appeal is made.”
(MLIP, § 13.20.1 (B), italics added.)2
No hearing may be scheduled before the City Council, unless the City Clerk has received an appeal in proper form. (Id., § 13.20.1 (D) [“Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal, the appeal shall be set for the appropriate hearing body”].) On March 28, 2023, that is, substantially more than ten days after the Planning Commission’s March 6 meeting, we learned from the City Clerk (a) that the Project applicant did not appeal; and (b) that notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to appeal and the absence of any appeal by the City Council from the Planning Commission’s action, the Project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on June 12, 2023. This process is fundamentally unlawful and exposes the City Council to legal action for exceeding its CDP jurisdiction under the MLCP and caselaw precedent.
In State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, the California Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, held that an appellate CDP administrative decision-making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where the decision of the lower body with original jurisdiction was not timely appealed. (Id. at p. 248; see Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1448-1449 [a failure to timely appeal a planning commission’s action is tantamount to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; where there is a prescribed procedure for appealing to a city council, that procedure must be followed]; Franklin, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 562 [local permit appeals board held to be without jurisdiction to hear appeal from denial of variance where appeal 1 At this juncture, the applicant is free to reapply with the planning department at the expiration of a twelvemonth period ensuing the Planning Commission’s denial action. (MLIP, § 13.22.) 2 In the context of a deadline to appeal action on a development permit application to an administrative appellate body, the word “shall” is mandatory. (Franklin v. Steele (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 558, 561.) 287
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
was filed 11 days beyond 10-day appeal period]; Samber, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (Mar. 28, 2008, No. D050107) 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2691, at *18-19; id. at *24-25 [if no appeal or call for council review, which Oceanside’s zoning ordinance allows any council member to initiate, is filed within 10 days of a planning commission decision, the decision takes effect, and the city council thereafter has no power to review it]; id. at *36 [“Because no call for review stating the reasons for the review was filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, the decision became effective upon the termination of the appeal period”]; see also Graves v.
Commission on Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976 [an administrative agency “must act within the powers conferred upon it by law and may not validly act in excess of such powers”].)
As is further evident from the above-quoted MLCP provisions, without appeal from the Planning Commission’s action denying the CDP, nothing triggers City Council jurisdiction over the CDP. The City Council’s authority to consider CDP applications derives from the MLCP, and the MLCP nowhere reserves authority in the council to decide CDPs other than pursuant to a timely appeal duly filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s action. An appeal from such action denying a CDP is the only procedural mechanism legally available to a CDP applicant, as the party aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s action, to trigger City Council jurisdiction over the CDP.
Simply put, without an appeal enabling the council to acquire CDP jurisdiction after the Planning Commission has acted, the council has no power to determine the CDP application for the Project Based on the authorities cited in this letter and our client’s due process right to proper CDP procedure -- a procedure certified by the California Coastal Commission when it adopted the MLCP pursuant to legislative mandate codified in Public Resources Code section 30166.5 -- we strongly object to any attempt by the City Council to assume jurisdiction over the CDP application when the applicant has neglected to appeal and there is no legal basis in the Coastal Act and the MLCP, which govern the CDP review process, empowering the council to decide a CDP application, and absent timely appeal by an aggrieved party or by the council itself. Consequently, we demand that the City Council refrain from hearing the CDP application. It is a well-established principle of California law that in the circumstances prevailing here, council action on the application for the CDP -- which would be adjudicatory (i.e., non-legislative) action -- is subject to writ or injunctive relief from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See State v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 248; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 72-74 [injunction affirmed, restraining legislative body from attempting to grant use permit it had no jurisdiction to grant absent prior approval decision by the planning commission]; see San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 720 [courts of equity are justified in issuing injunctive relief to restrain municipal corporations from “acting, or proposing to act, in excess of their jurisdiction”].)
288
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
Next, we offer an in-depth analysis of the legal authorities that compel the conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote is tantamount to action denying the CDP.
The Planning Commission’s Tie Vote Effectuates Denial of the CDP On March 6, 2023, four members of the Planning Commission properly heard the Project-related CDP application. They had a quorum. Three commissioners constitute a quorum. Of course, “ ‘[a] majority of the quorum may decide.’ [Citations.]” (People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington (1883) 63 Cal. 257, 260.) This means at least three yeas were required to approve the CDP for the Project. The applicant garnered only two. Two yeas do not constitute a majority of the quorum present to approve the CDP.
Because the CDP application couldn’t muster the votes necessary for approval, it must be deemed effectively denied. (REA Enterprises, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d at p. 607.) Similarly, when an ordinance does not receive the legally necessary vote for its passage, it is, “in fact, rejected.” (McCracken v.
San Francisco (1860) 16 Cal. 591, 618; accord, Pimental v. San Francisco (1863) 21 Cal. 351, 360-361.) Well-settled parliamentary rules corroborate these court holdings. “On a tie vote, a motion requiring a majority vote for adoption is lost, since a tie is not a majority.” (Roberts et al., Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000), § 44 p. 392.) In REA Enterprises, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (the Coastal Commission’s predecessor) considered a CDP for a residential condominium project. The CDP applicant needed at least seven of 12 votes to secure approval of the CDP. The vote was six in favor and six opposed. (Id. at pp. 602, 606-607.) As in our case, the CDP decision-making body was deadlocked. When it was determined that the tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP, the CDP applicant sued. And lost.
The question before the court of appeal was whether the tie vote resulted in the denial of the permit. (Id. at p. 601.) The court answered this question with a straightforward “yes.” It held: “Action was taken by the State Commission. REA did not receive the statutorily required number of votes. By failure to obtain a majority vote, the action taken by the State Commission effectuated a denial of the issuance of the development permit. [Fn.]” (Id. at p. 607, italics added.) As is self-evident from this holding, the Planning Commission’s tie vote is action. In fact, the court took pains to make clear that a tie vote at the first level of CDP review by the (former) South Coast Regional Commission, too, would be action denying the CDP:
289
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
“It would be just as fallacious to say that a tie vote by the State Commission did not result in a denial of a permit as to say that such a tie vote at the regional level would not result in a denial of the permit. … The denial is action by the respective commission.” (Id. at p. 607, original italics.) This is significant. Just as the Malibu Planning Commission here, in Rea Enterprises, the regional commission had original CDP jurisdiction.3 The conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP makes the most sense as project applicants have the burden of proof that their projects satisfy the findings requirements upon which permit approval must be premised. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 521; Hauser v. Ventura County Bd. of Supervisors (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 576; see also Vedanta Society of So. California v.
California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 529 [rejecting county counsel’s position that a tie vote constitutes approval of an environmental impact report when findings of approval are mandated by law]; Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825, 838 [because findings of approval are required to sustain approval of tentative tract maps, a tie vote without findings does not approve the proposed subdivision].)4 Clearly, the fact that the Project
3 Following the tie vote, the Planning Commission passed a motion made by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to simply forward the CDP application to the City Council on the ground that the commission was deadlocked. (City of Malibu, Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2023, YouTube (Mar. 6, 2023), 3:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pba4eCojGcA (Hearing Video).) This motion doesn’t change the analysis. The Planning Commission has no power under the MLCP or any other law to compel the City Council to review and act upon CDP applications. It has no power to force the City Council to act outside “the powers conferred upon it by law” (Graves, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at p. 976) or to “act in excess of such powers.” (Ibid.) The council just can’t ignore and violate the CDP appeal procedure mandated by MLIP section 13.20.1. As Commissioner Mazza correctly stated: “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the City Council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04; see id., 3:00 [Commissioner Mazza advising the applicant’s representatives: “You can appeal to the City Council”].) 4 The CDP findings requirements applicable to the Project include the following:
“A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and “B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).
290
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
applicant failed to persuade a majority of three planning commissioners that the Project complies with the MLCP offers further support and constitutes a strong policy rationale for the rule that a tie vote amounts to an effective denial of the CDP.
Original CDP permit jurisdiction properly lies with the Planning Commission, as conceded by the applicant by its participation in the commission’s hearing. The Planning Commission’s tie vote is action effectively denying the CDP. Given the applicant’s failure to appeal this action within the time limit prescribed by the MLCP, the City Council, as a matter of law, lacks CDP jurisdiction over the CDP application. There is nothing for the council to act on. “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the city council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04.) I look forward to hearing from you and hope this matter can be laid to rest without the need for court action. The applicant may reapply for a CDP as provided in MLIP section 13.23.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
cc: Hon. Mayor Bruce Silverstein, via email to [email protected] Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Paul Grisanti, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Marianne Riggins, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Doug Stewart, via email to [email protected] Steve McClary, City Manager, via email to [email protected] Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk, via email to [email protected] Patrick T. Donegan, Assistant City Attorney, via email to [email protected] Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, via email to [email protected] “C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. “D. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.” 291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Jason Ernst
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:59:45 PM
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:52 AM
To: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Good Morning Doug,
Hope you had a great weekend. I placed my answers below your questions in red. Hope it helps you, please let me know if I can clarify further.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Doug Stewart <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information Richard,
This issue of a view corridor and your answers are somewhat on target to my questions and those of the neighbors I have spoken with.
My issues stem from three questions. They are:
1. Where does a view corridor have to be placed on the property? It was my understanding that any such corridor must be along the lot line. In this case, the north lot boundary and the south boundary of the lot. This is somewhat addressed on page 258 of the report. However, it is not clear that there is any requirement or basis for the option of a diagonal view corridor as mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting.
Based on the LIP requirements below, the City has traditionally required view corridors along the 331
side yard property line. As you can see with irregularly shaped lots, the code identifies side yard. The LIP does not identify a diagonal view corridor as an option. With respect to ocean view, the applicant has two alternatives. One option is to build below road grade when feasible. Option 2 is to provide a view corridor where not feasible to build below road grade. The view corridor in the side yard is a means to allow for the lot to still be buildable while still providing a public ocean view.
A view corridor through the middle of the lot could be seen as rendering the lot unbuildable.
2. When I walked the property, the only view along the possible lot line view corridors was the mobile home park. The house is sited at an angle to address the ocean view being “to the right” and not directly “in front”. Is there supporting language to support that if there is not an ocean view, then no corridor?
Public view preservation is found in LIP Chapter 6, for all CDP application staff evaluates the project’s potential for an impact to a scenic view per LIP 6.3 below. If the project can demonstrate that it will not have an impact on scenic area than the requirements of a view corridor are not applied. 332
3. Also what is this mention of an “off-site” view corridor? Is there a basis to require the applicant to have to acquire a view corridor somewhere else? This is one that I am well versed in since I was the Planner that processed that amendment to our LCP. The offisite view corridor was a way to allow someone to block a required view corridor on their property and place that view corridor somewhere else in the City. Peter Morton was the one who processed that LCPA through the City and then the CCC to address his code violation for blocking his required view corridor. This was based on past action by the CCC and it is how one of the two lots along Carbon Beach where MRCA took down the fence came about. In order to utilize an offsite view corridor it first needs to be established that a view corridor is required.
Thanks
Doug
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Subject: 4.B. 6734 Zumirez Drive - additional information
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ALL
1. 2.
333
3. e public must be able to see the ocean while standing in the corridor and/or that the public must be standing in the view corridor for the ocean view from the street to be entitled to preservation? If the answer is yes, what language of the L.I.P. establishes such a requirement?
4. Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
334
From: Tyler Eaton To: Jason Ernst Cc: Patricia Salazar Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:05:33 PM Attachments: PVD 23-004.pdf
image002.png
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:14 PM To: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]> Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:48 PM To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A Answers in red below. There was a lot so I was brief but it answers all the questions except 16 which is a CA question.
From: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:07 PM To: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023 -- Item 4.A 335
New Development proposed on flat ground 10 feet from a stream New Development proposed on slope of 25 percent or steeper on property that is more than 250 feet from any stream (including any riparian vegetation).
When approving the City’s LCP ESHA criteria for the Point Dume area, the California Coastal Commission required that development shall avoid 25% slopes because the geography of the area is such that avoiding the slopes would essentially prevent impacts to the nearby streams. Although, I am not aware of a Council decision to also not include a the first part of 4.6.1(A). The way its worded is that “New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream. However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.” The City has applied the no development on slopes of 25 percent or more criteria and not the 100 foot ESHA setback. 336
All views of scenic resources are protected, the way the LCP protects ocean views is by requiring development to be below road grade if feasible or through view corridors. View corridors are meant to provide views where development obstructs the view from the public area as a result it becomes a single view (unless the lot is less than 50 feet wide) perpendicular from the road.
In making a decision, LIP 6.3 provides guidance in making a decision.
LIP 6.3. STANDARDS FOR DETERMINATION
All applications for a Coastal Development Permit shall be subject to an onsite investigation in order to determine whether the proposed project has the potential to cause adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas from or along Scenic Roads or Public Viewing Areas. Where applicable, proposed structures shall be accurately indicated as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags. All proposed grading and the proposed location of access roads or driveways, including the centerline top of cut and toe of fill, shall be accurately indicated by stakes. Both poles and stakes shall remain in place for the duration of the approval process. The applicant may also be required to provide other visual aides such as photographs with superimposed structures.
These requirements may be waived by the Planning Manager where it is determined through onsite investigation, evaluation of topographic maps or photographic evidence, or by other means that there is no possibility that the proposed development will create or contribute to adverse impacts upon Scenic Areas. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007)
"
. . . . public viewing area
337
any
Staff’s presentation is the original project. The day of the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant decided to remove a portion of the pool deck area 338
that was in the Zicklin’s view. Don plans to bring that project forward in his presentation. Staff has not done a full analysis on the removed area but it appears to get rid of the portion within the Zicklin’s view. It should also reduce the square footage by a bit unless some was added elsewhere. 339
1 City of Malibu
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
340
2 341
3 342
4 343
5 344
6 345
From: Tyler Eaton
To: Jason Ernst
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: Council Item 4A
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:17:13 PM
From: Tyler Eaton
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Council Item 4A
Hi Steve,
Nice speaking with you today. As discussed, below is the definition of a coastal bluff in LIP Chapter 2.
I am not aware off the top of my head if the argument has been used before, but we also took into account that the home at 6716 Zumirez, CDP 05-098, did not have to apply bluff setback standards.
Not to say that was right or wrong, but precedent had shown that the same hillside had not previously been considered a bluff.
The other questions seem better for our City Attorney to weigh in so I will forward to them to get an answer.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 5:35 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Item 4A
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links,reply or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tyler,
A couple of questions on 4A to get us started.
346
1) In the staff report you state that appealing a tie planning commission vote to the City Council is "consistent with past city practice".
Please identify the past dates and planning commission decisions that were handled in a similar manner.
Please also identify any tie planning commission votes that were not appealed to the city council. 2) Please identify where I find the written city rules that define when we follow Roberts rules of order for parliamentary procedure and when we ignore these rules and follow another set of rules.
Please also direct me to the document where I can find these alternative rules defined. 3) At approximately the 2.29 .30 mark of the March 6th Planning Commission meeting Lauren Doyle made the following statement in response to a question from Jeff Jennings as to why Lauren was not calling the bluff on Zumeriz a bluff:
Lauren stated "Under the definition of Coastal Bluff ( in the LIP) a high bank or bold headland 10 feet or more in vertical extent with a broad precipitous sometimes rounded cliff face.' Would you direct me to the section of the LIP where this definition ( including the word Precipitous) is found?
Can you direct me to any prior discussion of coastal bluffs where the word precipitous was used to define the coastal bluff?
I will get you more questions after more review.
steveU
347
From: Benjamin Suber
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Chris Deleau
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Dr. CDP (Item 4.b. last night) - Revised Plan Submittal Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:01:31 AM
Attachments: 201120_IBN_ZMRZ_CDP_STORY POLE PLANS_UPDATE 20230303-STORY POLE PLAN - MAIN RESIDENCE.pdf Good morning Tyler,
I hope you’ve had a great week so far! Based on the revised plans that were submitted in March, we have also revised our story pole plans and the plans are attached. Is there anything else you need for a stamp of these plans?
Thank you in advance and I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Cindy Martin <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]> Subject: 6734 Zumirez Dr. CDP (Item 4.b. last night) - Revised Plan Submittal Dear Chair Smith and Honorable Commissioners,
We discovered today that the Planning Department has been having trouble with its computer/email servers and that this was the reason that our revised plan submittal was missed last Friday. Planning has confirmed the timely receipt of the email/transmittal of our plans.
These plan revisions were undertaken as quickly as possible to address comments received from the applicant's neighbors during the prior 2 weeks. We pushed our architect to work late hours to update the project plans for submittal last week (in response to very recent neighbor feedback).
Additionally, we want to go on record advising you that these plan changes were discussed 348
with the Zicklins over the weekend prior to Monday night's hearing and they were made aware of the revisions we were proposing. We contacted Angel Law requesting a meeting to discuss the plan revisions last Friday and we received no callback from Ms. Friesen's legal counsel. Notwithstanding the fact that the project story poles have been in place for the better part of a year now ("Malibu Perennial Daiseys" as they are commonly referred to), most of the neighbors who wrote in to object to the project, did not do so until the very day of the hearing.
Our client was not obligated to make the plan revisions they did. This was a neighborly gesture and one that was undertaken as quickly as possible considering the tardy nature of the comments received by the applicant's neighbors.
We thank you for your thorough, exacting and conscientious deliberations last night.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message. 349
350
From: Janet Friesen
To: Tyler Eaton
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Dr
Date: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:15:15 AM
351
From: Benjamin Suber To: Jason Rouse; Tyler Eaton Cc: Richard Mollica; Don Schmitz; Ken Adelberg; Scott Hoeft; Chris Deleau Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:48:48 AM Attachments: 6734 Zumirez Certification Letter.pdf
6734 Zumirez Radius Map.pdf
6734 Zumirez Address List.xls
6734 Zumirez Certification Form.pdf
Yes, thank you Tyler. I'm going to do my part to keep it on track by submitting an updated radius map, address list and certification. The previous listing is more than 6 months old.
All deliverables are attached. Please let us know if you need anything else. Thank you again and I hope you have a great Tuesday ahead.
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Jason,
It looks like we are still on track for the September 11 meeting. Sorry did not want to respond without confirming but all signs are pointing to yes. If anything changes, I will let you know.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:11 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft 352
City of Malibu
353
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
l, Benjamin A. Suber, hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles within the area described and for a distance of 500 feet from the exterior boundaries of the subject property at 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu, CA, 90265 (APN: 4466-002-001).
ADDRESS: 6734 Zumirez Dr., Malibu, CA, 90265
Benjamin A. Suber, MPP, MS 8/15/2023
Benjamin A. Suber
August 15, 2023
354
NewID APN Owner SitusAddress SitusCity SitusZIP 1 4466 001 004 2 4466 002 001 3 4466 002 002 4 4466 002 003 5 4466 002 004 6 4466 002 005 7 4466 002 006 8 4466 002 020 9 4466 002 028 10 4466 003 001 11 4466 003 002 12 4466 003 003 13 4466 003 004 14 4466 003 005 15 4466 003 006 16 4466 003 012 17 4466 003 013 18 4466 003 014 19 4466 003 015 20 4466 003 017 21 4466 003 018 22 4466 004 017 23 4466 004 018 24 4466 004 019 25 4466 004 020 26 4466 004 025 27 4466 004 026 28 4466 004 027 29 4466 004 028 355
30 4466 004 029 31 4466 004 030 1 4466 001 004 OCCUPANT 28128 PACIFIC COAST HWY MALIBU CA 90265 2 4466 002 001 OCCUPANT 6734 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 3 4466 002 002 OCCUPANT 6728 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 4 4466 002 003 OCCUPANT 6716 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 5 4466 002 004 OCCUPANT 6706 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 6 4466 002 005 OCCUPANT 6674 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 7 4466 002 006 OCCUPANT 6672 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 8 4466 002 020 OCCUPANT 6546 ZUMA VIEW PL MALIBU CA 90265 9 4466 002 028 OCCUPANT 6656 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 10 4466 003 001 OCCUPANT 6747 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 11 4466 003 002 OCCUPANT 6749 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 12 4466 003 003 OCCUPANT 6763 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 13 4466 003 004 OCCUPANT 6805 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 14 4466 003 005 OCCUPANT 6811 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 15 4466 003 006 OCCUPANT 6825 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 16 4466 003 012 OCCUPANT 6804 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 17 4466 003 013 OCCUPANT 6754 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 18 4466 003 014 OCCUPANT 6744 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 19 4466 003 015 OCCUPANT 6831 ZUMIREZ DRIVE MALIBU CA 90265 20 4466 003 017 OCCUPANT 6836 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 21 4466 003 018 OCCUPANT 6830 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 22 4466 004 017 OCCUPANT 6709 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 23 4466 004 018 OCCUPANT 6725 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 24 4466 004 019 OCCUPANT 6637 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 25 4466 004 020 OCCUPANT 6647 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 26 4466 004 025 OCCUPANT 6655 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 27 4466 004 026 OCCUPANT 6665 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 28 4466 004 027 OCCUPANT 6685 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 29 4466 004 028 OCCUPANT 6649 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 30 4466 004 029 OCCUPANT 6651 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 31 4466 004 030 OCCUPANT 6653 ZUMIREZ DR MALIBU CA 90265 356
1 8
17 6
4 19
3 5
2 11
7 9
15 10
14 12
13 18
31 23
22 16
21 20
19 25
24 30
27 28
26 29
500-Foot Radius Map
6734 Zumirez
500-Foot Buffer
Properties within 500 Feet
0 200 400 800 Feet
¯
357
<[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler
I hope you had a great weekend. I am following up to my email last week. We would love to get confirmation on our place on the schedule for the upcoming hearing on September 11 which is quickly approaching.
I would sincerely appreciate the courtesy of a response.
Thank you so much
Best
Jason Rouse
310.592.9180
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 9, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Jason Rouse <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tyler,
I hope this finds you well. I am simply following up to Chris’s email below as an owner of the project.
We are very much hoping there will be no further delays and we are on the calendar for the next hearing.
We look forward to receiving your confirmation.
All the best,
Jason Rouse
On Aug 8, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Chris Deleau <[email protected]> wrote:
Tyler, It has been a month since our application was rescheduled a second time. We are following up to make sure that our client’s item is going to go before the Council on September 11, 2023.
If you could please confirm our September hearing date, we will provide you with updated noticing materials. Since we have a 21-day SPR Noticing period, now would be the time to do this.
Thanks,
358
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 4:52 PM
To: Jason Rouse <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Jason,
I understand your concern. Unfortunately, the agenda it is not up to planning staff but rather City Council priority. As of now we are doing what we can to get your item formally scheduled.
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 7:16 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
This is very disappointing to hear. This is the second time we have been bumped off the schedule.
Is there anything you can do to ensure we are confirmed for the September hearing and that we don’t get pushed again?
We have spent more than 5 years adhering to the exhausting and costly process imposed by the city of Malibu to get us to this point. While we respect the process, we would sincerely appreciate our time and money being given the same consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason Rouse
310.592.9180
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2023, at 5:48 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
359
Hi Jason, Ben and team,
There has been some re-shifting of the City Council agenda due to some high priority items taking precedence. As of now the item is tentatively scheduled for September 11. You can hold off on the mailing data until we can confirm for sure.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good afternoon Tyler,
Also while I check in, please let us know if we need to update the mailing list and radius maps for CDP 20-058. If so, we’ll get them updated for you asap.
Thank you in advance and I hope you all have a great rest of your day. <~WRD2267.jpg>
<~WRD2267.jpg>
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg
360
<[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler,
I hope this finds you well. I know Don’s very capable team has been in touch regarding this, but as the owner i wanted to reach out directly about the city council hearing for 6734 Zumirez. We were told it would be on the calendar for August 14, but have not yet received official confirmation. It’s been almost 6 months since our last hearing and we are understandably anxious to see some progress. Can you please confirm?
We look forward to hearing from you.
All the best,
Jason Rouse
On Jan 23, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Everything is on schedule for the Feb 21 Meeting. I can’t release the PVD until the applicant submits the required paperwork. I will follow up again with them today.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:54 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
I hope you had a great weekend. Again, Im sure you are very busy but we would sincerely appreciate a response to our emails below regarding the neighbor issue. Also, February is quickly approaching and we would like to confirm that we are on the schedule for Feb 21 hearing so that we may plan
accordingly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Jason Rouse
361
On Jan 19, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Don Schmitz <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Tyler;
We are sensitive to the fact that you wish to
make a thorough analysis of the neighbor’s
assertion of a primary view. However, this
doesn’t provide them a blank check to delay us
interminably, especially in light of the fact that
we as applicants have provided in a timely and
proactive fashion comprehensive analysis of this
and all other issues. This is exacerbated by the
reality that we were already scheduled for
hearing months ago and had that hearing pulled
just weeks prior.
It is important that the city staff do a thorough
job, and you do. It is important that the
neighbor’s concerns be thoroughly vetted under
the code, and they have been. It is also important
that the property owners receive timely
processing of their application in a reasonable
manner and time frame consistent with the
planning industry standards like everywhere else
in the state. The planning director, city manager,
and the city council have all affirmed repeatedly
over the last two months that this is a priority
reform for Malibu.
As this application has drug on for years, it is a
good example of a system that is not functioning.
I know you and Richard are doing the best you
can with inadequate resources for the workload,
but enough is enough. Please tell our neighbors
that you are moving this project to hearing, and
that if they intend to submit anything further to
your offices the time is now.
Thank you Tyler, and if you could please let us
know by the end of this week our tentative
hearing date, I would be grateful.
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617-0773 | Office: (818) 338-3636
<image001.png>
[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com 362
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Ken
Adelberg <[email protected]>; Don
Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott
Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez project and PVD status
Hi Tyler
Any news on this? Have you received the
paperwork yet?
Please advise and thank you.
Jason Rouse
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2023, at 3:22 PM, Tyler
Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
I will be sure to send it once I
receive the paperwork.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023
12:37 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> Cc: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>;
Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz <[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez project and
PVD status
Hi Tyler
363
Hope you had a great weekend. Just
wanted to send a reminder to
please send us the PVD when you
can. Please keep us posted.
Thx
Jason
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2023, at 3:26
PM, Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris and team,
I have the PVD ready
but we are waiting on
some documents from
the applicant/owner.
Once we have those I
can release the PVD.
I will send as soon as
its finalized.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday,
January 4, 2023 6:42
PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> Cc: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz <[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Importance: High
Tyler, It's been a
couple weeks since
364
you undertook the
PVD on the
neighbor's lots. Have
you been able to
draw it up and
finalize the PVD? We
would greatly
appreciate an update
here. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates,
Inc.
Christopher M.
Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects
Manager
The content of this email
is strictly confidential and
only intended for the
specified recipient. It is
forbidden to share the
email or its contents with
any third party without
the sender’s written
consent. If this email
reached you by mistake,
please let us know so that
we can ensure that this
doesn’t happen in the
future and delete the
message.
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday,
December 28, 2022
3:41 PM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> Cc: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz <[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Tyler, just following
365
up to obtain a copy
of the PVD that was
prepared for the
Eileen Penn Property
next door. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates,
Inc.
Christopher M.
Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects
Manager
The content of this email is
strictly confidential and
only intended for the
specified recipient. It is
forbidden to share the
email or its contents with
any third party without
the sender’s written
consent. If this email
reached you by mistake,
please let us know so that
we can ensure that this
doesn’t happen in the
future and delete the
message.
From: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
December 20, 2022
2:02 PM
To: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]> Cc: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz <[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Hey Chris,
The project is
tentatively scheduled
366
for February 21. I’ll be
in touch soon if I need
anything. I have taken
the photos and will
send you a copy when
I have finalized the
PVD.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
December 20, 2022
10:21 AM
To: Tyler Eaton
<[email protected]> Cc: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>;
Don Schmitz <[email protected]>;
Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>;
Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: Zumirez
project and PVD status
Good morning Tyler,
We wanted to follow
up with you to see if
the Penn residence
had requested a PVD
formally, and if you
had already taken site
photos and prepared a
PVD?
We are all very eager
to move this project
forward to hearing.
If you could update us,
it would be most
appreciated.
Chris
Get Outlook for iOS
367
1 City Council
Subject: FW: Letter to City on Item 4A
From: Lester Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:28 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to City on Item 4A
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in favor of your adopting the staff report recommending approval of this project.
I have known Ken and Jason for several years, and have worked for them as project architect on a couple of their projects. I did some early project analysis for this particular project, as well.
This is not a controversial project. It only finds itself in front of you due to our highly polarized planning commission, which, due to a recusal, split 2-2 on every single attempt at a resolution at the most recent hearing on this project.
This is not a controversial project. It is not trying to max out the TDSF of the parcel, it is not reducing setbacks, or proposing to develop in ESHA, on bluff tops, or in hazardous locations.
This is not a controversial project. It does not propose any portion of the structure over 18 feet in height that blocks a neighbors primary view.
This is not a controversial project. It is unfortunate that some of my professional colleagues, rather than giving honest and sound advice to adjacent homeowners who are obviously trying to limit development on their street, chose instead to see if they could find any meaningless chink in the armor, any nuanced phrased not yet parsed, or utilize any misdirection play to create controversy where none exists.
This is not a controversial project. The staff report is one of the strongest and clearest in a long time for a project that must make its way to the City Council, for it is usually at this point that you are asked to play Solomon and figure out how to split the baby. In this case, the staff report is very clear; no violation of the LIP is being proposed, no legal view is being blocked, no sensitive site is being defiled.
This is not a controversial project. It is a rather simple house, bigger than some, smaller than others. It does not lord over the site or the neighboring properties. It is certainly in keeping with the size and attributes of a Point Dume residence in 2023, and it would not be fair to try to force an applicant to build a home from another epoch on any property in Malibu, for any reasons not specifically enumerated in the LIP.
In the forty odd years that I have been an architect (thirty of them in Malibu) I have worked for many developers. Most of them start the process by asking how much can they get away with. Ken and Jason have never done that. They
CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
9/25/2023
4A
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 9/25/2023 368
2 continually work with people they find to be top quality designers and consultants, and I have always found them to want to do right by the code, and by Malibu. The project before you is just such an example of their approach. It deserves approval.
Sincerely,
Lester Tobias
369
1 City Council
Subject: 4B, October 9th City Council Meeting - Correspondence re 6734 Zumirez Drive Attachments: Ltr re 6734 Zumirez 100223[1].pdf
From: Christie Casas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:31 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrick McNicholas <[email protected]>
Subject: 4B, October 9th City Council Meeting - Correspondence re 6734 Zumirez Drive Good morning,
Attached please find correspondence in reference to 6734 Zumirez Drive.
Thank you,
Christie Casas
Legal Assistant
McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (310) 474 1582
Fax: (310) 475 7871
Email: [email protected] Website: mcnicholaslaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. This e-mail message may contain material that is protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender at (310) 474-1582, delete this e-mail message from your computer, and destroy any and all copies.
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/9/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 10/9/2023 370
371
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/09/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 372
10/09/2023
373
1 City Council
Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Richard, we have submi ed our revised project to the City on March 3rd. Those plans are the ones that cons tute our project. Thank you.
Ms. Pe john, please make sure to circulate this email chain and our comments herein to the Council members for their review and considera on. Thank you.
Best,
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/9/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 374
10/9/2023
2 <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
As of several months ago, sta was given direc on at City Council hearings to not present and analyze modied projects post Planning Commission review. Consistent with our recent prac ces sta will present the project that was presented to the Planning Commission. Similar to the Planning Commission hearing, you are welcome to submit your revised project and analysis for the considera on of the Council.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Richard, the Council Policy you cite is not valid. This alleged policy has not been adopted by resolu on or other ac on of the City Council and is not contained within the Published Council Policies Manual See policy #14 below requiring that any policy of the Council must be in wri ng and comport with principles of due process to be e ec ve]. Assuming arguendo, that the policy is law, this policy would only apply to Projects that the Planning Commission has taken nal ac on on (e.g., appeals), as was its intent.
The project plans/descrip on were revised and submi ed prior to the March 6, 2023, Planning Commission hearing as was the Applicants preroga ve. Pursuant to California Law the Applicant can modify, amend, or withdraw its development project applica on at any me prior to the City taking Final Ac on on the project.
If the City has a di erent posi on, we ask that the City provide the applicant with the applicable codes and [formally] adopted City Council policy(s) that prohibit a development project applicant from so modifying its proposal.
Because the project descrip on was modied prior to Planning Commission hearing and prior to the City taking ANY ac on on the project (something the City has s ll not done), the project before the Council is the project as modied per the plans submi ed on March 3, 2023.
375
3 Below is a link to all adopted Council Policies. You will note that the policy you reference has not been adopted by the City Council and even if it were, the policy would not apply to cases where the City has not taken nal ac on on the permit.
h ps://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/46/Council-Policies?bidId= Best,
376
4 From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Hi Chirs,
Tylers comment below echo the direc on I have given him as well as that of the City Managers o ce.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
Sta has been directed by Council to present the same project that went before the Commission. We are not supposed to accept changes between mee ngs. The revised plans you submi ed were last minute (Friday a er hours before the Monday mee ng and the City was experiencing technical di cul es) and placed within an email in which we were 377
5 expec ng an exhibit for a blu top ques on we got from a commissioner. Had we known before the mee ng that revised plans were presented in that same email, we would have con nued the item.
Thus, since the project went forward and was deadlocked, the project being presented to Council the same as it was in March. You can present the new changes and the Council can consider but sta is doing as directed.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Patricia, I wanted to copy you and Rebecca on the below email which is regarding our project at 6734 Zumirez (Item 4B Appeal going before the City Council in 10 days).
The sta report & Resolu on references the wrong plans (not the most recent). Please see the below email and the a ached for reference (comments on Sta report).
Call me if you have any ques ons.
From: Chris Deleau
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
378
6 Tyler,
I previously provided comments on the sta report that was prepared for the prior Planning Commission hearing (March 6, 2023). Some of those comments have not been addressed as sta is reusing the Commission sta report from earlier this year. To this end I wanted to reiterate and clarify the applicants posi on on several ma ers.
1. Property is not Visible from a Public Beach: In the view protec on sec ons of the sta report and resolu on (page 4 resolu on under pgh C.1.), the report states inaccurately that the project will be visible from a public beach. Paradise Cove beach is a privately owned beach and the Public view protec ons in the LCP do not regulate/protect private beaches or views from private property.
2. Current Plans & Project Descrip on: We want to conrm that City sta has reviewed the most recent project plans (as it states in the sta report that sta has NOT reviewed the most current plans and that those plans are not the ones under considera on.) The current residence is designed to be 6,173 sq. (a er elimina on of the lower-level bedroom). The sta report and resolu on are s ll referencing the old plans and this needs to be rec ed prior to hearing with a Supplemental Agenda Report. Condi ons of approval should reference the March 3, 2023 Plans, not the an quated plan set dated February 8, 2023. The project descrip on in the sta report should be modied to reect the current scope and .
3. Findings: Page 2 of the September 25, 2023 sta report should be deleted (see below provision). In order to move forward with the correct project descrip on and ndings sta should analyze the revised plans for conformance with the LCP/MMC.
4. Private View Protec on (Janet Friesen): The PVD for our neighbor, Janet Freisen, located at 6744 Zumirez is not valid. The photos and PVD loca on, were taken from an unpermi ed deck that was constructed, without the benet of permits, back from 2017 to 2018. During this me, the en re rear deck was reconstructed and signicantly enlarged (its a new deck). Primary View Loca ons may only be located on rear decks or from inside the main viewing area of the home. Because the Deck was not legally permi ed and constructed, it is not lawful or appropriate to take the neighbors private view from an area of bootlegged development. Please see the a ached historical aerial photos illustra ng that the deck is bootlegged and not appropriately considered as a Primary View Loca on.
379
7 5. Project Support: The prior sta report (February 23, 2023), beginning at page 3, discusses neighbor concerns. It should be noted that the applicant has modied the plans in a manner that is acceptable to several of its neighbors. The Zicklins (6716 Zumirez) have publicly acknowledged that the applicants architectural changes to the lower level has completely addressed their concerns. Addi onally, the Penn Family sold their property next door (6726) and the new owner has acknowledged his complete support for the project following the architectural changes made to the prior plans. Ryan Levis who previously represented the Penn family, does not represent the current property owners (who again have submi ed a le er in support of the project). Jamie Harnish also commented previously on behalf of the Penn Family (6726) but Mr. Harnish does not represent the current property owner.
Should you have any ques ons please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best Regards,
380
CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/09/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 10/09/2023 381
382
383
384
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
explained below, the applicant’s failure to appeal leaves the City Council without jurisdiction to review or act upon the CDP application for the Project.1 The Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (MLIP) makes clear that, except for administrative or emergency permits, which the Planning Director may decide in the first instance, the Planning Commission is responsible for deciding all CDPs in the first instance, subject to appeal to the City Council (and the Coastal Commission). (MLIP, §§ 13.7, 13.20.1 (A).) Any “aggrieved person” may appeal. (Id., § 13.20.1 (A).) Alternatively, the City Council itself may appeal, upon the affirmative vote of at least three of its members. (Id., § 13.20.1 (H).) “An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days following the date of action for which appeal is made.”
(MLIP, § 13.20.1 (B), italics added.)2
No hearing may be scheduled before the City Council, unless the City Clerk has received an appeal in proper form. (Id., § 13.20.1 (D) [“Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal, the appeal shall be set for the appropriate hearing body”].) On March 28, 2023, that is, substantially more than ten days after the Planning Commission’s March 6 meeting, we learned from the City Clerk (a) that the Project applicant did not appeal; and (b) that notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to appeal and the absence of any appeal by the City Council from the Planning Commission’s action, the Project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on June 12, 2023. This process is fundamentally unlawful and exposes the City Council to legal action for exceeding its CDP jurisdiction under the MLCP and caselaw precedent.
In State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, the California Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, held that an appellate CDP administrative decision-making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where the decision of the lower body with original jurisdiction was not timely appealed. (Id. at p. 248; see Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1448-1449 [a failure to timely appeal a planning commission’s action is tantamount to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; where there is a prescribed procedure for appealing to a city council, that procedure must be followed]; Franklin, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 562 [local permit appeals board held to be without jurisdiction to hear appeal from denial of variance where appeal 1 At this juncture, the applicant is free to reapply with the planning department at the expiration of a twelvemonth period ensuing the Planning Commission’s denial action. (MLIP, § 13.22.) 2 In the context of a deadline to appeal action on a development permit application to an administrative appellate body, the word “shall” is mandatory. (Franklin v. Steele (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 558, 561.) 385
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
was filed 11 days beyond 10-day appeal period]; Samber, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (Mar. 28, 2008, No. D050107) 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2691, at *18-19; id. at *24-25 [if no appeal or call for council review, which Oceanside’s zoning ordinance allows any council member to initiate, is filed within 10 days of a planning commission decision, the decision takes effect, and the city council thereafter has no power to review it]; id. at *36 [“Because no call for review stating the reasons for the review was filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, the decision became effective upon the termination of the appeal period”]; see also Graves v.
Commission on Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976 [an administrative agency “must act within the powers conferred upon it by law and may not validly act in excess of such powers”].)
As is further evident from the above-quoted MLCP provisions, without appeal from the Planning Commission’s action denying the CDP, nothing triggers City Council jurisdiction over the CDP. The City Council’s authority to consider CDP applications derives from the MLCP, and the MLCP nowhere reserves authority in the council to decide CDPs other than pursuant to a timely appeal duly filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s action. An appeal from such action denying a CDP is the only procedural mechanism legally available to a CDP applicant, as the party aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s action, to trigger City Council jurisdiction over the CDP.
Simply put, without an appeal enabling the council to acquire CDP jurisdiction after the Planning Commission has acted, the council has no power to determine the CDP application for the Project Based on the authorities cited in this letter and our client’s due process right to proper CDP procedure -- a procedure certified by the California Coastal Commission when it adopted the MLCP pursuant to legislative mandate codified in Public Resources Code section 30166.5 -- we strongly object to any attempt by the City Council to assume jurisdiction over the CDP application when the applicant has neglected to appeal and there is no legal basis in the Coastal Act and the MLCP, which govern the CDP review process, empowering the council to decide a CDP application, and absent timely appeal by an aggrieved party or by the council itself. Consequently, we demand that the City Council refrain from hearing the CDP application. It is a well-established principle of California law that in the circumstances prevailing here, council action on the application for the CDP -- which would be adjudicatory (i.e., non-legislative) action -- is subject to writ or injunctive relief from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See State v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 248; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 72-74 [injunction affirmed, restraining legislative body from attempting to grant use permit it had no jurisdiction to grant absent prior approval decision by the planning commission]; see San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 720 [courts of equity are justified in issuing injunctive relief to restrain municipal corporations from “acting, or proposing to act, in excess of their jurisdiction”].)
386
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
Next, we offer an in-depth analysis of the legal authorities that compel the conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote is tantamount to action denying the CDP.
The Planning Commission’s Tie Vote Effectuates Denial of the CDP On March 6, 2023, four members of the Planning Commission properly heard the Project-related CDP application. They had a quorum. Three commissioners constitute a quorum. Of course, “ ‘[a] majority of the quorum may decide.’ [Citations.]” (People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington (1883) 63 Cal. 257, 260.) This means at least three yeas were required to approve the CDP for the Project. The applicant garnered only two. Two yeas do not constitute a majority of the quorum present to approve the CDP.
Because the CDP application couldn’t muster the votes necessary for approval, it must be deemed effectively denied. (REA Enterprises, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d at p. 607.) Similarly, when an ordinance does not receive the legally necessary vote for its passage, it is, “in fact, rejected.” (McCracken v.
San Francisco (1860) 16 Cal. 591, 618; accord, Pimental v. San Francisco (1863) 21 Cal. 351, 360-361.) Well-settled parliamentary rules corroborate these court holdings. “On a tie vote, a motion requiring a majority vote for adoption is lost, since a tie is not a majority.” (Roberts et al., Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000), § 44 p. 392.) In REA Enterprises, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (the Coastal Commission’s predecessor) considered a CDP for a residential condominium project. The CDP applicant needed at least seven of 12 votes to secure approval of the CDP. The vote was six in favor and six opposed. (Id. at pp. 602, 606-607.) As in our case, the CDP decision-making body was deadlocked. When it was determined that the tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP, the CDP applicant sued. And lost.
The question before the court of appeal was whether the tie vote resulted in the denial of the permit. (Id. at p. 601.) The court answered this question with a straightforward “yes.” It held: “Action was taken by the State Commission. REA did not receive the statutorily required number of votes. By failure to obtain a majority vote, the action taken by the State Commission effectuated a denial of the issuance of the development permit. [Fn.]” (Id. at p. 607, italics added.) As is self-evident from this holding, the Planning Commission’s tie vote is action. In fact, the court took pains to make clear that a tie vote at the first level of CDP review by the (former) South Coast Regional Commission, too, would be action denying the CDP:
387
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
“It would be just as fallacious to say that a tie vote by the State Commission did not result in a denial of a permit as to say that such a tie vote at the regional level would not result in a denial of the permit. … The denial is action by the respective commission.” (Id. at p. 607, original italics.) This is significant. Just as the Malibu Planning Commission here, in Rea Enterprises, the regional commission had original CDP jurisdiction.3 The conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP makes the most sense as project applicants have the burden of proof that their projects satisfy the findings requirements upon which permit approval must be premised. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 521; Hauser v. Ventura County Bd. of Supervisors (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 576; see also Vedanta Society of So. California v.
California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 529 [rejecting county counsel’s position that a tie vote constitutes approval of an environmental impact report when findings of approval are mandated by law]; Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825, 838 [because findings of approval are required to sustain approval of tentative tract maps, a tie vote without findings does not approve the proposed subdivision].)4 Clearly, the fact that the Project
3 Following the tie vote, the Planning Commission passed a motion made by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to simply forward the CDP application to the City Council on the ground that the commission was deadlocked. (City of Malibu, Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2023, YouTube (Mar. 6, 2023), 3:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pba4eCojGcA (Hearing Video).) This motion doesn’t change the analysis. The Planning Commission has no power under the MLCP or any other law to compel the City Council to review and act upon CDP applications. It has no power to force the City Council to act outside “the powers conferred upon it by law” (Graves, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at p. 976) or to “act in excess of such powers.” (Ibid.) The council just can’t ignore and violate the CDP appeal procedure mandated by MLIP section 13.20.1. As Commissioner Mazza correctly stated: “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the City Council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04; see id., 3:00 [Commissioner Mazza advising the applicant’s representatives: “You can appeal to the City Council”].) 4 The CDP findings requirements applicable to the Project include the following:
“A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and “B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).
388
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
applicant failed to persuade a majority of three planning commissioners that the Project complies with the MLCP offers further support and constitutes a strong policy rationale for the rule that a tie vote amounts to an effective denial of the CDP.
Original CDP permit jurisdiction properly lies with the Planning Commission, as conceded by the applicant by its participation in the commission’s hearing. The Planning Commission’s tie vote is action effectively denying the CDP. Given the applicant’s failure to appeal this action within the time limit prescribed by the MLCP, the City Council, as a matter of law, lacks CDP jurisdiction over the CDP application. There is nothing for the council to act on. “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the city council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04.) I look forward to hearing from you and hope this matter can be laid to rest without the need for court action. The applicant may reapply for a CDP as provided in MLIP section 13.23.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
cc: Hon. Mayor Bruce Silverstein, via email to [email protected] Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Paul Grisanti, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Marianne Riggins, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Doug Stewart, via email to [email protected] Steve McClary, City Manager, via email to [email protected] Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk, via email to [email protected] Patrick T. Donegan, Assistant City Attorney, via email to [email protected] Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, via email to [email protected] “C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. “D. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.” 389
1 City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 4.B, October 9, 2023 City Council Meeting (6734 Zumirez Dr.) Attachments: Ltr. re Agenda Item 4.B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF; M. Johnsson Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF; E. Read Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF
From: Ginetta Giovinco Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:31 PM To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 4.B, October 9, 2023 City Council Meeting (6734 Zumirez Dr.) Good Afternoon, Honorable Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council:
In connection with Item 4.B on your agenda for the October 9, 2023 City Council meeting, attached please find correspondence along with two supporting memoranda.
Thank you for your consideration of these items.
Ginetta L. Giovinco
Attorney
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
T: D:
C:
E:
W:
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/09/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 10/09/2023 390
Ginetta L. Giovinco
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E [email protected]
350 South Grand Avenue
37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
rwglaw.com
October 6, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: City Council Agenda Item 4B – October 9, 2023 Meeting Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068, Site Plan Review No. 21-009, and Demolition Permit No. 20-028
(6734 Zumirez Drive; Owner: IBN Properties, LLC)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Our office represents the Gil Friesen Trust on behalf of Janet Friesen in connection with the proposed coastal development permit (CDP) sought by IBN Properties, LLC (Applicant) for a residential development project located at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project).
At the outset, we respectfully object to this matter proceeding before the City Council. As set forth in detail in correspondence from Angel Law dated April 11, 2023, based on the Project’s failure to obtain three affirmative votes on the CDP, and the lack of any timely appeal from that vote, this Council does not have jurisdiction over the Project. In short, there is no basis upon which this Council should proceed to take any action on the Project.
Should the Council choose nonetheless to proceed with this matter, the Council still should not approve the Project for several reasons – each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to justify a decision not to approve the Project as proposed.
First, during the course of the Planning Commission hearing in March 2023, the Applicant’s representative, in his PowerPoint presentation, rushed through two versions of the Project in an effort to address a neighbor’s concerns. To date, we are not aware that any of these revisions have been analyzed in any meaningful way, or at all. Stated differently, the Projectrelated information contained in the agenda packet does not appear to be for the actual, 391
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
October 6, 2023 Page | 2
“updated” version of the Project that we understand the Applicant now is proposing. As a result, as well as for the reasons set forth in our experts’ comments (discussed below), because the older version is now presented as the Project, both this Council and the public – including our client – have been deprived of the opportunity to fully evaluate the Project and its potential impacts.
Second, the Applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate consistency with requirements of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP), including relating to geology. We are enclosing with our correspondence a Memorandum from Mark Johnsson, a professional geologist who served as the California Coastal Commission’s Staff Geologist from 2000-2017 and who authored the draft of what became Chapter 10.4 of the LCP’s Local Implementation Plan dealing with geologic stability. As stated in Mr. Johnsson’s Memorandum, the Project information provided to date fails to provide sufficient data to address concerns regarding (1) the possibility of faulting at the site and (2) the potential for retreat of the bluff at the site.
Further subsurface investigation is required, as is additional evaluation of potential, future erosion of the slope. This information is critical to a complete understanding of the Project and its potential impacts. The LCP demands inclusion of this information in the CDP application for vetting of the Project before City decision-makers’ and the public’s review.
Third, the Applicant also has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate the Project’s consistency with portions of the LCP that exist to protect biological resources. We are enclosing a Memorandum from Edith A. Read, a Certified Senior Ecologist who has conducted numerous biological inventories and assessments in the City of Malibu for over a decade. As explained in the Memorandum, the Project is located next to a natural creek that may qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). While the creek is not shown as ESHA on City maps, that has not stopped the City from requiring biological review in other, recent situations. For example, as stated in Ms. Read’s Memorandum, City staff recently required a biological study for property located nearby (also on Zumirez Drive, but actually at greater distance from the environmentally sensitive intertidal zone than the Project site), due to the location above a drainage feature called Walnut Canyon that was not shown on City maps as ESHA but nevertheless potentially qualified as such.
Fourth, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Project complies with provisions in the LCP designed to protect scenic and visual resources. While the Staff Report purports to make required findings, the Applicant has not met its burden to provide substantial evidence to support these findings. Instead, there are simply bare statements untethered to evidence.
More is needed.
392
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
October 6, 2023 Page | 3
Fifth, while the Project seeks to rely on a Class 3 exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), insufficient information has been presented to demonstrate that the Project is not subject to an exception to that exemption, including pursuant to Title 14, Section 15300.2 of the California Code of Regulations. Based on the concerns outlined above, including those related to geological issues and potential biological resources, there is a fair argument that an exception to the exemption is present.
In sum, the issues presented above demonstrate that any action on this Project at this juncture is premature. Additional information is needed, including in the critical areas of geology and biology, before the Council and the public can understand the full potential impacts of, and issues related to, the Project in its revised form.
We respectfully urge the City Council not to approve the Project. Should the City Council determine to take any action at all (which, as noted above, we do not believe is appropriate), the Council should direct that further and complete review of the revised Project occur, and that the revised Project be considered by the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Ginetta L. Giovinco
Enclosure(s)
cc: Steve McClary, City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
13123-0002\2874408v1.doc
393
Mark J. Johnsson
Geologist
394
21 September 2023 page 2
395
1 October 5, 2023
Re: Agenda Item 4B, City Council Meeting October 9, 2023: proposed adoption of Resolution No. 23-45 regarding proposed development at 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu Mayor Uhring and Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council:
I am a biologist who has conducted numerous biological inventories and assessments for property owners in the City of Malibu for over a decade. It was brought to my attention that City staff has determined the demolition and development project proposed for 6734 Zumirez Drive to be categorically exempt from CEQA, and is proposing that the City Council concur in this determination.
Based on my review of background information and my visit to the neighbor’s property on September 26, 2023 where I could view the story poles, I cannot find any evidence that justifies a categorical exemption from CEQA. On the contrary, I believe that an exception to the exemption exists pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, and therefore the project cannot proceed without some level of environmental review. I have provided an aerial photo and topographic map on the next page which show that the property is located next to a natural creek. While this creek is not shown as ESHA on City maps, in my professional opinion and based on my review of the site, it may still qualify as such. To my knowledge, no Biological Inventory or Assessment has been conducted to evaluate this, and/or whether protected native trees could be impacted by the project.
Use of a CEQA exemption here is also inapplicable based on recent City determinations on a property on the very same street. Recently I conducted a study for a nearby property at 6551 Zumirez Drive, above a drainage called Walnut Canyon that was not shown on City maps as ESHA but nevertheless potentially qualified as such.
In their review of the property, City staff recognized the presence of this feature and required the property owner to have a biological study completed. That the City recognized that ESHA may be present in this location supports a conclusion that an exception to the use of a CEQA exemption applies here. The purpose is not to stop the project entirely, but to ensure that it avoids or at least minimizes resource impacts. This can only occur after an appropriate environmental document is prepared.
I recommend that Resolution No. 23-45 NOT be adopted at this time and that the appropriate biological studies be conducted to ensure that Malibu’s natural resources continue to be protected as required under the LCP/LIP.
Edith A Read, PhD
President, E Read and Associates Inc.
Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America E Read and Associates, Inc.
Ecological Surveys, Restoration, Maintenance, and Monitoring 368 South Grand Street, Orange, CA 92866
396
397
1 City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 4.B (10.09.23) -- SUPPLEMENTAL Correspondence Attachments: M. Johnsson SUPPLEMENTAL Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF
From: Ginetta Giovinco Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:32 AM To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 4.B (10.09.23) -- SUPPLEMENTAL Correspondence Good Morning, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
In furtherance of the materials submitted on Friday regarding this matter (please see below for reference), attached please find a short, supplemental memorandum from Mr. Mark J. Johnsson, a certified engineering geologist. Mr.
Johnsson conducted additional review of available documents and has concluded that the development not only encroaches on a slope of more than 25%, but is actually proposed to be constructed within such a slope. Thank you for your consideration of this supplemental memorandum.
Ginetta L. Giovinco
Attorney
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
From: Ginetta Giovinco
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:31 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>;
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/9/2023
4B
398
399
Mark J. Johnsson
Geologist
San Rafael, California 94901
www.markjohnsson.com
400
7 October 2023 page 2
401
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU
FILED
City of Malibu
Office of the City Clerk
Meeting Date_________________________
Agenda Item #________________________
10/09/2023
4B
CC: Council; CM; CA ;______; Ref. Binder; Original to _____________ Agenda File PL 10/09/2023 402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
Engineering Geologic Memorandum
Memorandum
416
417
Chapter 10
– Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance
418
Respectfully Submitted,
419
Site-Specific References (Subject Property, 6734 Zumirez Drive):
Site-Specific References (6517 Zumirez Drive):
Site-Specific References (6531 Zumirez Drive):
420
Site-Specific References (6540 Zumirez Drive):
Site-Specific References (6601 Zumirez Drive):
Site-Specific References (6625 Zumirez Drive):
Site-Specific References (6626 Zumirez Drive):
421
Site-Specific References (6642 Zumirez Drive):
Regional Geologic References:
422
423
Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential,
General Geologic/Geotechnical References:
424
Subsurface Explorations and Sampling
Earthquake Effects on Soil-Foundation Systems
Aerial Photographs Reviewed:
425
Geologist
Hopkins University in 1978. After receiving a Master’s degree from Dartmout 426
21 September 2023 page 2
in writing and revising the City’s Local Coastal Plan.
“ ”
“…
”
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
Exhibit G
444
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd, Malibu, California 90265-4861
(310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650 www.malibucity.org
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination: 6716 Zumirez Drive – Eric and Dorothy Zicklin On January 22, 2013, staff conducted a primary view determination at 6716 Zumirez Drive .
Staff documented the primary view standing on an outdoor deck, located within ten feet of the exterior wall of the living room, a location chosen by the property owner. The location of the primary view determination photographs were taken from is denoted by a red star in the aerial below.
On January 22, 2013, the view from this location on the property is as follows, from north to south:
445
Exhibit H
2 446
3 447
4 448
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. ∙ Malibu, California ∙ 90265-4816 Phone (310) 456-2489 ∙ Fax (310) 456-7650 ∙ www.malibucity.org
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination: 6728 Zumirez Drive – Penn Family Trust On December 14, 2022, staff conducted a primary view determination at 6728 Zumirez Drive.
Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.45.050, staff captured the primary view on the patio abutting the living room of the single-family residence, facing southeast, a location chosen by the property owner. The property and recorded view is denoted in the neighborhood map (Exhibit1) below.
Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 6728 Zumirez Drive and recorded view. (Source:
City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
Exhibit I
449
2 A total of five photographs were captured in sequence from the northeast to the southwest. The nature of the view determination consisted of blue water views of the Pacific Ocean and concern over proposed development at 6734 Zumirez Drive that may block those views. The specific location of the view determination was on the patio abutting the living room, a primary living area. The photos were taken ten feet in front of the living room patio doors at an elevation of five feet. A detailed key map showing the specific location where the view was observed, the 180 degree view axis, and corresponding views are denoted in Exhibit 2 below.
Exhibit 2: Detailed Key Map of the Primary View Determination; 6728 Zumirez Drive (Source:
City of Malibu GIS, 2023)
1 2
3 4
5 450
3 The five photos that combine to reflect the property’s primary view, are provided below.
View 1 –Looking Northeast.
View 2 – Looking East.
451
4 View 3 – Looking Southeast.
View 4 – Looking South.
452
5 View 5 – Looking Southwest.
453
6 View 6 – Photos taken ten feet from the patio doors of the main viewing area (living room).
View 7 – Photos taken five feet from the patio floor.
454
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference, for the project identified below.
APPEAL NO. 24-001 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09 denying Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068 and Demolition Permit No. 20-028 for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 5,860 square foot single-family residence, 986 square foot basement, 510 square foot attached garage, 462 square foot detached garage, 471 square foot detached second unit, swimming pool, two spas, onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 21-009 for construction up to 24 feet in height for a flat roof
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 6734 Zumirez Dr / 4466-002-001 / Rural Residential-One Acre (RR-1) APPLICANT: Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
OWNER / APPELLANT: IBN Properties LLC
APPEALABLE TO: California Coastal Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: December 29, 2020
APPEAL FILED: February 12, 2024
CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE
ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR., Interim Assistant Planning Director Date: August 1, 2024 Exhibit J
455
Agenda Item # 6.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: August 7, 2024 Meeting date: August 26, 2024 Subject: White Heart Foundation Fee Waiver
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider whether to approve the request from the White Heart Foundation to waive the facility rental fees for the 2024 Ride to the Flags event.
FISCAL IMPACT: Waiving the facility use fees will result in a loss of revenue of $5,116 for FY 2024-25 in Account Number 100-0000-3461-00 (Municipal Facility Use Fees).
Facility rentals generate revenue for the City, and waiving these associated fees limits potential revenue.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: The White Heart Foundation (Foundation) is a non-profit organization that coordinates programs and events to help support wounded veterans and their families.
Since 2014, the Foundation has rented Malibu Bluffs Park for the annual Ride to the Flags event on or around September 11. It includes motorcyclists riding from Ventura County on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to Pepperdine University and concludes with a celebratory fundraising event at Malibu Bluffs Park.
From 2014 to 2017, the City had various compliance and rental issues with the Foundation, including extended facility use times without approval, items left at the park for multiple days, and damage to park facilities. City Council reviewed the Foundation’s event and requested they work with staff to meet Temporary Use Permit (TUP) conditions, improve communication, and coordinate a well-organized event. In 2018, the Foundation hired an event planner to ensure TUP compliance, resulting in a streamlined and structured event, which has occurred for the last six years (the event did not occur in City Council Meeting
08-26-24
Item
6.A.
1
Agenda Item # 6.A.
2020). Additionally, attendance management has eased, dropping from 1,000 riders in 2017 to 450 in 2023.
On July 29, 2024, the Foundation submitted a TUP application for the 2024 Ride to the Flags event at Malibu Bluffs Park. The rental includes, • Setup: Saturday, September 7, 2024
• Event and Breakdown: Sunday, September 8, 2024
This would be the second TUP issued for Malibu Bluffs Park this year.
The Foundation requested the City to waive 100% of the facility use and staffing fees associated with the event.
Type Non-Profit Rate
Malibu Bluffs Park Rental $3,218
Application Fees $500
Staffing $1,398
Total $5,116
Historically, the Foundation has not requested a fee waiver, and this is their first request since the event has been held on City property. If approved, the Foundation will use the money to provide resources for injured veterans. Additionally, the Foundation agreed to pay TUP fees and a facility deposit associated with the event.
ATTACHMENTS: White Heart Foundation Income Statement
2 White Heart Foundation
Income Statement
12/31/2022
Revenue 2022
Contributions $ 294,942
Interest income 112
295,054
Expenses
Assistance to domestic individuals 23,498
Officer Compensation 39,500
Other Salaries 35,000
Payroll taxes 11,432
Lovbbying expense 1,832
Advertising 1,250
Office expense 4,699
Information Technology 16,167
Occupancy 26
Travel expense 11,260
Conferences 238
Interest expense 5,824
Insurance expense 3,837
Events expense 122,222
Outside services 21,525
Merchandise expense 3,805
Storage expense 920
Misc Expense 605
303,640
Net Income (Loss) $ (8,586)
UNAUDITED - FOR MANAGEMENT USE ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1 3
White Heart Foundation
Statement of Cash Flows
12/31/2022
Operating Activities
Net Income (Loss) (8,586)
Net cash provided by operating activities $ (8,586)
Financing Activities
Change in unsecured notes and loans payable 2,006
Other liabilities 996
Net cash provided by financing activities $ 3,002
Net cash decrease for period (5,584)
Cash at beginning of period 128,406
Cash at end of period $ 122,822
UNAUDITED - FOR MANAGEMENT USE ONLY
ATTACHMENT 1 4
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Joseph Smith, AICP, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: August 7, 2024 Meeting date: August 26, 2024 Subject: Consideration of Nobu Restaurant Conditional Use Permit RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a preliminary report on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 06-009 and Joint Use Parking Agreement (JUPA) No. 06-001 for restaurant and parking operations associated with the Nobu restaurant located at 22706 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and provide direction as follows:
1) Direct Staff to bring forward an item for the Planning Commission to consider whether to set a hearing to consider the question of modification of the CUP to address alleged nuisance concerns;
2) Direct Staff to bring forward an item for the Planning Commission to consider whether to set a hearing to consider the question of revocation of the CUP due to alleged violations of CUP conditions; or
3) Receive and file the report and request Nobu finalize an application for a CUP amendment and staff to process the amendment in a timely manner.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: Nobu’s operation is authorized by CUP No. 06-009 and JUPA No. 06-001 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-02 in January 2007 (Attachment 1).
City Council Meeting
08-26-24
Item
6.B.
1
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Project plans approved by the Planning Commission are included as Attachment 2. A reciprocal parking agreement for use of 10 spaces on the adjacent restaurant site at 22716 PCH (Soho) was required by condition of the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
The restaurant has been very successful since its opening and as a result, City staff and the community have observed that the parking demand for the use often exceeds the site’s capacity, and that the onsite parking has not satisfied the needs associated with the restaurant resulting in several nuisance and safety concerns and potential violations of the CUP conditions. The City Council could consider addressing these issues in one of three ways: 1) City modification of the CUP conditions; 2) City revocation of the CUP; or 3) CUP operator completing pending CUP amendment. Consideration of each option is provided below:
1) City Modification of the CUP Conditions
MMC Section 17.66.100(C)(3) states: The conditions under which a conditional use permit was approved may be modified by the city without the consent of the property owner or operator if the planning commission finds that the use or related development constitutes or is creating a nuisance.
If evidence demonstrates that Nobu’s use of the property constitutes, or is creating, a nuisance, the Planning Commission may set a hearing to consider modification of Nobu’s CUP, and then modify it at that hearing if it makes such a finding after the presentation of all evidence. Evidence of potential nuisances created by Nobu’s use of the property include:
• Holding events without temporary use permits;
• Employees and/or valet parking attendants infrequently using the crosswalk on PCH located at the edge of the property when crossing PCH as a result of parking offsite; • Vehicles queuing on PCH potentially impacting traffic and safety on PCH; and • Rideshare vehicles and taxis conducting U-turns and/or staging on PCH potentially impacting traffic and safety on PCH.
Should the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the question to modify the CUP conditions, the item would be noticed the same as a new CUP hearing (i.e., 21-day notice in newspaper and mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius and any interested parties requesting notification).
2) City Revocation of the CUP
MMC Section 17.66.100(C)(1) states: If it has cause to believe that grounds for revocation or modification may exist, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing upon the question of modification or revocation of a conditional use permit granted under or 2
Agenda Item # 6.B.
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Notice of such hearing shall be the same as would be required for a new conditional use permit.
MMC Section 17.66.100(C)(2) states: A conditional use permit shall be revoked if the planning commission finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
…
(c) One or more of the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been substantially met.
If evidence demonstrates that Nobu has not substantially met any of its conditions, the Planning Commission may set a hearing to consider revocation of Nobu’s CUP, and then may revoke it if it makes that finding after the presentation of all evidence.
Relevant conditions of approval included in CUP No. 06-009 include the following:
Condition 2: Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. …
x Joint Use and Common Parking Facilities Agreement to allow reciprocal parking. The agreement will contain requirements for an annual review by the City Planning Manager with authority to modify the agreement as necessary to maintain onsite parking
arrangements;
…
Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans on-file with the Planning Division. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval the condition shall take precedence. [Note: Attachment 3 includes plans approved by the Planning Commission in January 2007]
Condition 14: Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and termination of all rights thereunder.
Condition 40: The new restaurant at 22716 PCH shall serve as a donor site for 10 parking spaces for the adjacent restaurant at 22706 PCH. A legal agreement (Joint Use and Common Parking Facilities Agreement) between the City and the applicant is required as a condition of approval. The agreement will contain requirements for an annual review by the City Planning Manager with authority to modify the agreement as necessary to maintain onsite parking arrangements. 3
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Condition 43: … Valet parking shall be used for all uses associated with the project and during all hours of operation. No valet staging or valet parking of cars on PCH is permitted.
Should the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the question to revoke the CUP, the item would be noticed the same as a new CUP hearing (i.e., 21-day notice in newspaper and mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius and any interested parties requesting notification).
3) CUP Operator Proposed CUP Amendment
Following a series of CUP compliance reviews by the Planning Commission1, on June 11, 2019, the CUP operator filed a CUP application to “Review and Confirm Circulation Plan for Conditional Use Permit 06-007.” The CUP application was filed by the City as a CUP amendment (CUPA 19-005) and included an Access and Parking Review memorandum prepared by the applicant’s traffic engineer. The applicant stated that the CUP application was being filed under protest and with full reservation of rights as Nobu believed it was in full compliance with its CUP and not in violation of any MMC provisions. The applicant stated that the application was submitted at the City’s request as staff had informed the applicant that it would not review any further technical studies or memoranda unless a CUP application was submitted.
Issues related to onsite circulation were the primary subject raised in the CUP application.
The City contends that the authorized valet entrance from PCH is to occur solely at the westerly driveway on 22716 PCH (Soho) and the authorized valet exit is to occur solely at the easterly driveway on 22706 PCH (Nobu). The center driveway between Soho and Nobu is to be used solely for emergency vehicle ingress/egress and not as valet ingress/egress. This is shown in a figure from plan sheet A2.0 in plans shown to the Planning Commission at the January 2007 meeting (Attachment 2). 1 April 3, 2017; June 5, 2017; November 5, 2018; March 18, 2019; May 20, 2019 4
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Additionally, Exhibit E of the recorded Joint Use and Common Parking Facilities Agreement (Attachment 3) required by CUP Condition Nos. 2 and 40 include the following exhibit identifying the center driveway between Soho and Nobu as “Fire Dept Access”.
Recital F in the Agreement states that this area is a “shared Fire Department Access” for both properties.
The applicant contends that the authorized valet entrance from PCH is from the westerly driveway on Nobu, not Soho (i.e., the westerly Nobu driveway is the shared the center 5
Agenda Item # 6.B.
driveway between Soho and Nobu) and the authorized valet exit onto PCH is from the easterly driveway on Nobu. The applicant included an exhibit stating that the “Certificate of Occupancy for Nobu’s operation was granted using the existing circulation pattern on the Property, which is shown below (except that the signs and marking are proposed, not existing)”.
*Staff Note: The white arrow markings, dash lines, and “Keep Clear” text were added to the exhibit as proposed and were not existing at the time.
The applicant included a statement that: “1) this is the circulation plan that was approved by the CUP; 2) this is the circulation plan that has been in place from the beginning of Nobu's operations, 3) this circulation already been approved by the City through the Certificate of Occupancy, and 4) the circulation has been subsequently endorsed by the City through countless site visits and meetings.”
Since the initial filing of CUPA No. 19-005 in June 2019, two additional updates were provided to the Planning Commission on June 28, 2019 and March 5, 2020. The March 2020 meeting included a report on changes to the existing valet and parking plan for Soho and Nobu. In April 2022, staff met with the applicant representatives regarding a potential crosswalk relocation on PCH and the status of the applicant’s updated traffic plan that considered revising ingress/egress for Soho and Nobu. On December 22, 2022, Public 6
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Works issued an incomplete letter/traffic memo to the applicant. The letter indicated why the proposed ingress/egress changes to Soho and Nobu were not acceptable. The letter also listed requirements for the installation of a full traffic signal at the easterly Nobu driveway on PCH, protected phases for westbound and eastbound left and U-turn lanes, and a dedicated phase for the pedestrian crossing. Additional requirements included roadway restriping and revisions to the easterly driveway location, with information requests related to valet operations, rideshare, deliveries, and onsite parking.
Brief Project Summary Background
The subject property is developed with a one-story, 5,904 square foot commercial building.
The restaurant/bar, consisting of 3,700 square feet of indoor and outdoor service area, is a conditionally permitted use. The development and use were approved in January 2007 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-02 (Coastal Development Permit No. 05-193, CUP No. 06-009 and JUPA No. 06-001). The City Environmental Health Department allowed for 249 seats based upon the septic system capacity. The JUPA authorized Nobu to utilize 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Soho site. At the time the project was approved, 74 onsite parking spaces were required for the restaurant per MMC Section
17.48.030 (1 space per 50 square feet of service area). As the site could only accommodate 64 onsite spaces, a 10-space deficit was addressed by utilizing 10 surplus spaces on the adjacent Soho site which had a surplus of 11 spaces for that adjacent restaurant use.
At the time the JUPA was approved, the Planning Commission authorized the JUPA as both properties were restaurant uses, with the same proposed hours of operation and both were conditioned to require only valet parking. The Planning Commission found that the two parking lots would efficiently manage parking for both restaurants through the JUPA.
The Planning Commission included conditions of approval related to onsite valet parking to service all uses and that valet staging or parking on PCH be prohibited. This was intended to ensure that all parking be provided onsite (64 spaces at Nobu and 10 spaces at Soho). As the Planning Commission acknowledged that the site is a visitor-serving development that would be in operation during the highest beach use times of the day, onsite parking was intended to satisfy all the needs with the restaurant use. Onsite parking was also intended to ensure that offsite restaurant patron parking does not displace public parking for beach access and that the restaurant would not interfere with the parking and circulation for the area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-02
2. Project Plans Approved by Planning Commission
3. Reciprocal Parking Agreement
7 ATTACHMENT 1
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
ATTACHMENT 2
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 ATTACHMENT 3
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61
Agenda Item # 7.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Cynthia Alba, Executive Assistant
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 24, 2024 Meeting date: August 26, 2024 Subject: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate(s) for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the City’s voting delegate and alternate voting delegate(s) for the League of California Cities 2024 Annual Conference scheduled for October 16-18 in Long Beach.
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. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: The League of California Cities 2024 Annual Conference is scheduled for October 16-18 in Long Beach. As part of the Conference, the League will hold its Annual Business Meeting on Friday, October 18, during which League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the League requires City Council action to designate a voting delegate. The Council may also choose to designate up to two alternate voting delegates. The League must be notified of the City’s delegates prior to September 25, 2024. Staff will notify the League of the Council’s appointments.
ATTACHMENTS: Memo from League of California Cities dated July 10, 2024 City Council Meeting
08-26-2024
Item
7.A.
1 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.
Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
Attachment 1
2 For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 3 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
4 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 5