Agenda packet, second session — Malibu City Council, March 24, 2025 (part 5 of 6)

Figure 1: Yellow Area represents Area of Existing Brush Clearance for Surrounding Homes. The stream itself is the only sensitive resource on site.

The City’s Staff Report states that “According to a supplemental letter prepared by the project biologist, Forde Biological Consultants, dated May 3, 2022, “[t]he consulting waste water engineer John Yaroslaski, of ENSITU Engineering, stated in his letter that an elimination of the 3rd bedroom of the proposed single-family residence would result in a reduction of the required leaching area for the septic system. This would allow the applicant to move his house 5 feet closer to the street” and that this constitutes a feasible and purportedly less damaging project alternative. The staff report goes on to state, “While the proposed project may not have quantifiable impacts on biological resources, the project’s ESHA impacts result from new development being located within 100 feet of stream ESHA.” (Emphasis added) What are “impacts” in the land use context, if not the quantifiable effects of a specific action or series of actions as discerned through data and expert opinion? If an effect or “impact” is not “quantifiable” then how is it that the city can make the legally required findings that such detrimental impacts will or will not occur? Here, staff is assuming that an impact will occur, and this assumption is being made without basis in fact, professional opinion, or other quantifiable data. In fact, the staff’s assumption is directly controverted by all of the substantial professional study and data analysis.
360
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 3 ends

As noted above, the Applicant’s Biologist and Wastewater Engineer have both found that the project as designed will not have any impact upon ESHA and that locating the house close to the street will therefore not minimize impacts to ESHA, as none exist in the first instance. The opinions of these professionals are supported by real data. Mr. Yaroslaski (civil engineer/wastewater engineer) found that by utilizing a micro dosing wastewater treatment and dispersal system to disperse treated wastewater very slowly into the ground at shallow depth.

Furthermore, the treated effluent will be tertiary water quality. Given the project’s specific distance to the stream and the amount of wastewater dispersed over the area of the field, the project engineer was able to determine that there will be little to no hydrologic connection between the septic dispersal field and the stream. The Engineer has factored in, among other things, the strength of wastewater being produced, the amount of wastewater being produced, the level of treatment proposed, the dispersal rate, and the proximity to the stream (among other factors), in reaching his conclusion that the house and septic system as designed will have NO impact to the stream or ground water. This type of impact assessment has been undertaken by qualified professionals and is based upon uncontroverted qualitative and quantitative data.

Andrew Forde, the Project Biologist, states as follows “...moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area [Stream ESHA]. As currently designed the proposed house will not have any significant impacts to the drainage.”
City staff falsely assumes, in contradiction to expert opinion on the record, that: 1. Any development located within 100’ of ESHA has a per se impact upon ESHA and that; 2. Moving development further from the ESHA will per se reduce environmental impacts to ESHA. Not only is there no scientific data to support this position, the language contained in LIP Sections

4.6, 4.7 and 13.26 does not support staff’s code interpretation and application in this regard.

LIP Section 13.26 requires several findings to be made in order to approve a variance.

Subsection (E) states pertinently as follows, “For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible alternative for siting the structure [that will comply with the 100’ setback or otherwise reduce impacts] and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.” The Forde Biological Consultants Letter states that eliminating the basement would allow the proposed residence to move five (5) feet closer to the street. That said, Mr. Forde states that this alternative needn’t be considered because it would not provide any environmental benefit nor minimize any potential impact. Hence, while Forde does ‘consider’ an Alternative, he finds that this alternative is not environmentally superior or necessary given that there is no impact in the first instance. The City staff report conveniently omits reference to the portions of the applicant’s biologist’s report (and wastewater report and correspondence), which both find this alternative to be unnecessary and not beneficial to ESHA or the environment. In conclusion, this alternative does not provide any environmental benefit and, even when analyzed under the light most favorable to the City, is at best unfounded and misguided and at worst is punitive and intentionally prejudicial to the applicant’s development application. 361
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 4 ends

II. Requiring the Applicant to Site the House Closer to the Street by 5’ Would Not Provide any Benefit but Would Require an Additional Entitlement and Impose a Significant Hardship on the Applicant
While relocating the Residence towards the street does not mitigate or reduce any impact associated with the proximity of the development to the stream, implementing this alternative could trigger a new entitlement for relief from the Front Yard setback requirement. The residence is currently proposed as close to the street as permitted by code (18 feet 2 inches).

Moving the proposed house closer to the street will cause an encroachment into the minimum Front Yard Setback in violation of Section 3.6(F)1 of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP)1.

III. Staff’s Most Recent Findings are Contradicted by Prior City Findings in Support of Project Approval and yet there has Been No New Evidence in the Record to Warrant the Revised Recommendation of Denial
These most recent findings contained in the December 5, 2022, staff report are contradicted by staff’s findings in its February 22, 2022, Staff Report. The February staff report found that the proposed Single-Family Residence was the least environmentally damaging alternative. In CDP Finding #3, the report stated that “The proposed project maximizes the setback from the creek, minimizes the impacts to ESHA to the extent feasible, and does not result in any significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative.” Alternatives analyzed in February included a smaller project, no basement and residence siting farther from the creek. Each of these alternatives were fully considered and rejected in the February report. The December staff report reversal is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nothing in the record justifies or explains the staff’s change in recommendation from approval to denial.

IV.Requiring the Applicant to Remove Bedrooms and/or Basement Area Would Not Serve to Minimize Impacts but Would Serve to Prejudice the Development Application
The December 5, 2022, Malibu Planning Commission Staff Report states “The elimination of bedrooms would result in the reduction of the dispersal area.” The rationale being that reducing the size of the project’s micro dosing leach field would limit environmental impacts. The applicant reiterates the comments above, noting that it is not possible for the applicant to minimize or avoid impacts which the experts have opined on and found do NOT exist. The project as designed (3 Bedrooms) has already been found not to have any impact upon ESHA or the environment. Therefore, further conditioning the project and limiting development (that already complies with all other development standards and LIP section 4.7) would not further any legitimate government interest and would substantially prejudice the applicant. 1 Section 3.6(F)1 states “Front yard setbacks shall be at least 20% of the total depth of the lot, or 65 feet, whichever is less.”
362
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 5 ends

V. The Vast Majority of Property Is Located Within the 100-Foot Stream ESHA Buffer
The Malibu LCP depicts a significant portion of the subject property as within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). For that reason, the entire property encroaches into the required 100-foot ESHA Buffer pursuant to section 4.6.1(A) of the Malibu LCP LIP2. As mapped by Project Biologist Andrew Forde and buffered, 95% of the property is located within the Stream ESHA Buffer. The remaining 5%, about 300 square feet, is located within the front yard setback and is not enough room to place an entire house project.

Portions of the OWTS are located within the area outside the Stream ESHA Buffer, but the area is not large enough to accommodate an entire dispersal field, let alone the subject house. A variance for development within the Stream ESHA buffer is inescapable in order to viably develop the subject property.

The applicant applied for such a variance in 2016. The February 22, 2022, Staff Report made findings to approve Variance 16-024 for development within a Stream ESHA Buffer. Finding 1 stated that “There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, including: the small size parcel and the location of an onsite stream ESHA.”
Staff was able to make Finding 3 because the variance “... will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners in that single-family residences have been developed on properties in the immediate vicinity with reduced setbacks from ESHA similar to the requested variance.” This encroachment is not unique to 31864 Sea Level Drive and can be found on other properties all along West Sea Level Drive.

The subject property has been cleared of native vegetation due to Fire Department required fuel modification. This fuel modification comes from legally existing structures within 200 feet of the subject property. Section 3.1 of the Malibu LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) states “... fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA.” Due to this past and ongoing clearance, the areas outside the stream and riparian canopy are not considered ESHA and are not afforded the same level of protection as the stream.

As mentioned above, Andrew Forde concludes his July 7, 2022, letter by stating that “...moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area.” Therefore, as designed, the proposed single-family residence has no impact on the ESHA, let alone the ESHA buffer area which is cleared on an ongoing basis for fire protection.
2 Section 4.6.1(A) of the Malibu LCP LIP states “New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation.” 363
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 6 ends

It is unlawful for the City to require conditions of approval, let alone deny this project completely, in the absence of impacts and a required nexus. In order to meet constitutional requirements, 1) there must be a nexus between the development and the condition, and (2) there must be a “rough proportionality” between the nature and extent of the dedication or condition and the impact of the proposed development. The former test is commonly referred to as the “Nollan test” and the latter test is commonly referred to as “the Dolan test,” after the cases articulating the rules. Nollan v. California Coastal Com’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. Nollan and Dolan are thus concerned with implementing one of the fundamental principles of modern takings jurisprudence, “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Ehrlich v.

City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 880, citing Armstrong v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 40, 49. See also Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1470 [if applicant is subject to an exaction that bears no relationship to the benefit conferred on the applicant or the burden imposed on the public, there is a taking of property].

VI. There were Similar Projects Approved on West Sea Level Drive As detailed in the applicant’s July 7, 2022 response, there have been numerous prior entitlements approved along West Sea Level Drive. Four Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) have been approved since the Coastal Act was first implemented in 1977, and two of those CDPs were approved after certification of the Malibu LCP. The two City of Malibu CDPs were both approved on March 20, 2006, for two different scopes and for two different properties.

At 31858 Sea Level Drive, CDP 05-162 was approved for a lot line adjustment and a swimming pool installation with no discretionary requests. The City of Malibu Biologist determined that there would be no impact on ESHA from the project scope even though the development proposal did not comply with the required stream setbacks.

At 31894 Sea Level Drive, CDP 05-043 was approved for a new single-family residence and OWTS. This approval included two Site Plan Reviews for construction on steep slopes and heights exceed limits in the Malibu LCP LIP and a Minor Modification for Side Yard Setback Encroachment. The March 20, 2006, Staff Report acknowledged that the entire property was located within the 100-foot ESHA setback, however, no Variance was required for this development scope.

VII. There are No Impacts to the Stream ESHA, Private Views and Cultural Resources Stream ESHA
Patt Healy of the Malibu Slow Growth Coalition submitted letters for both the February 22, 2022, and December 5, 2022, Planning Commission hearings raising concern about the size and bulk of the proposed residence, proximity to a blue line stream, impacts to private views, and impacts to cultural resources. Similar concerns were raised by Glenn & Elizabeth Lynch in their 364
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 7 ends

comment letters for the same hearings. Some of these concerns were addressed in the applicant’s response on July 7, 2022.

Andrew Forde analyzed the impacts to the Blue Line Stream in his May 3, 2022 letter which was part of the July 7th response packet. In a surprising omission the only sentence provided and analyzed in the staff report was the statement by Mr. Forde that “[t]he consulting waste water engineer John Yaroslaski, of ENSITU Engineering, stated in his letter that an elimination of the 3rd bedroom of the proposed single-family residence would result in a reduction of the required leaching area for the septic system. This would allow the applicant to move his house 5 feet closer to the street.”
The staff report presents this to the Commission as a justification for denying the variance and requiring a redesign to move the house closer to the street. However, staff omits the portion of the biologist’s letter which goes on to state;
“... moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area.” Mr. Forde concluded that “As currently designed the proposed house will not have any significant impacts to the drainage.” Private Views
Along West Sea Level Drive, there is only one Primary View Determination near the subject property. It is PVD 12-109 at 31833 Sea Level Drive with a determination on December 6, 2012.

Photographs in the PVD demonstrate that there are no private view impacts to any nearby residences. At 26 feet, 2 inches, the proposed single-family residence is also of comparable height to the neighbors to the south, which are 26.46 feet and 28.55 feet in height respectively3.

Cultural Resources
A Phase II Archaeological Report was required for the processing of this application and was submitted by Clay Singer of C.A. Singer and Associates, Inc. Mr. Singer concluded his report by stating “regardless of how much excavation work is carried out in the future, the possibility of impacting significant archaeological resources is near zero.” As part of the draft resolution for the February 22, 2022, hearing, three cultural resource conditions were presented, including an archaeologist monitoring all excavations of three feet or deeper and immediate ceasing of work if 3 Data source: LARIAC Buildings 2014 GIS Feature Class. Updated April 28, 2021 by Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS. Data was cumulated through a process known as “Deep Learning.” 365
Adrian Fernandez
December 30, 2022

Page 8 ends

cultural resources are discovered during construction. The conditions were written pursuant to Sections 11.3(G)4and 11.5 of the Malibu LCP LIP5.

VIII. Conclusion
By Malibu standards or any other standards, the proposed residence is small. The Main living area of the residence is limited to 1,000 sq. ft. and includes one guest room. The Bedroom wing upstairs contains only two additional bedrooms and is limited to 796 sq. ft. The garage has been limited to a two-car garage; the minimum required by the code. Locating additional square footage below grade, thereby limiting the footprint and massing of the residence, is the most effective way to avoid project impacts.

This modest three-bedroom house is smaller than the average size home in this neighborhood.

For staff to suggest that the elimination of one of the bedrooms and the entire basement area is needed to avoid impacts to ESHA is neither supported by facts nor by expert opinion on the record. Such a recommendation would deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other property near the property with the same zoning classification. It should be noted that the vicinity is not restricted to the homes along the Western side of Sea Level Drive but rather those on both sides of the street and within the neighborhood generally. The proposed residence complies with the maximum development area permitted by code for developments within an ESHA or ESHA buffer per LIP section 4.7 and the residence will not have any impact upon ESHA or the environmental and is otherwise consistent with all other provisions of the LCP.

For all of the reasons stated above, we ask that staff reconsider its recent flip flop, and that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s project as currently proposed.

Sincerely,

GAINES & STACEY, LLP
Fred Gaines
By

FRED GAINES
cc: Don Schmitz (Via Email)
4 Section 11.3(G)4.b states “Project applicant agrees to provide monitoring of all excavation or trenching by a qualified Chumash cultural resource monitor, chosen in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City Native American Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, and the most likely descendent.”
5 Section 11.5 states “Any person who discovers important cultural resources during the course of construction for a project shall notify the Planning Manager of the discovery. Once important cultural resources are discovered, no further excavation shall be permitted without approval of the Planning Manager” 366
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 6, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. for the project identified below which will be held via teleconference only in order to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19 pursuant to AB 361 and the County of Los Angeles Public Health Officer’s Safer at Home Order.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 05-081, VARIANCE NOS. 09-023 AND 16-024, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 06-032 - An application for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development, including variances for construction within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area buffer and dispersal field within the required 100-foot setback from the creek, and a site plan review for construction in excess of 18 feet, up to 26 feet, 2 inches in height
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 31864 Sea Level Dr / 4470-027-020 / Single-family Medium (SFM) APPLICANT / OWNER(S): Amit Apel Design Inc. / Narod A. Najarian and Garo Bedrossian APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15304(e) APPLICATION FILED: April 26, 2005
CASE PLANNER: Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 482
For the projects identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures.

LOCAL APPEAL – A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action (15 days for tentative maps) for which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

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

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE

PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: January 12, 2023

ATTACHMENT F
367
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
October 10, 2024
Attn: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Raneika Brooks, Senior Planner
RE: CDP 05-081, 31864 Sea Level Drive (Garo Bedrosian) – Applicant’s Response to Appeal 23-003
Dear Mayor Stewart, and Honorable Council Members:

Our office represents Garo Bedrossian, Applicant for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 05-081 for 31864 Sea Level Drive and the Appellee in this matter. The proposed project consists of a very modest proposed 3-bedroom residence. The following is a more detailed project description:
• New 1,799 sq. ft., two-story single-family residence (SFR), with a permeable driveway. • 398 sq. ft. attached garage,
• 995 sq. ft. basement,
• An Exterior Deck
• A New Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (AOWTS).

Chronology
CDP 05-081 was deemed complete by the Planning Department on January 19, 2022, and was first heard before the Planning Commission on February 22, 2022. This hearing was followed by 3 additional hearings and was finally approved by the Planning Commission on April 17, 2023. The approval was appealed to City Council by Elizabeth & Glenn Lynch and Patt Healy of the Malibu Coalition for No Growth (Appellants) on May 2, 2023 (Appeal 23-003). The appeal is now finally being heard on November 12, 2024, 1 year and 6 months after the application was submitted.

EXHIBIT F
368
Introduction
This correspondence is intended as the applicant’s response to the points raised by the appeal of its project.

Appeal Argument #1: The proposed project does not conform with the LCP because the proposed residence and OWTS are not designed to minimize ESHA buffer impacts to the Maximum extent feasible.

Applicant Response #1: As will be discussed further below, the applicant’s project meets all the objective development standards for ESHA projects and the findings required by LIP Chapter 4.

Of this there can be no doubt. Even the appellant does not dispute the project’s compliance with the objective ESHA development standards.

Discussion
Where a new residence is proposed in a non-ESHA area, the applicant is entitled to 2-acre development area; however, where the residence must be sited within ESHA or ESHA Buffer, as is the case with this residence, the development area is limited by Section 4.7 of the LIP.

Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP states that “the allowable development area (as defined in Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP) on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.” Pursuant to 4.7.1 the applicant is allowed a development area of only 1,738 sq. Ft. (vs. The 10,000 sq. Ft. Development areas allowed on larger parcels and the 2-acre development area allowed on non-ESHA parcels.) As can be seen, limiting the size of the development area to 1,738 sq. ft. is incredibly restrictive.

The project as proposed only utilizes 1,719 sq. ft. of development area.

The applicant has sensitively designed a home where the Chapter 4 supplemental findings for projects that impact ESHA can be made. LIP 4.7.6 (Supplemental Findings) provides as follows:

A. Application of the ESHA overlay Chapter would not allow construction of a residence on an undeveloped parcel.

B. The project is consistent with all provisions of the certified LCP with the exception of the ESHA overlay and it complies with the provisions of Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

The first finding can be made because the strict application of the 100’ stream buffer would preclude ANY development on the property.

The second finding can be made because the home is consistent with all other development standards in the LCP except for the stream buffer requirement and the project does comply with the requirements of LIP 4.7 as it meets the development area standard in 4.7.1 and provides the applicant with a bare minimum “Economically Viable use” of its property. 369
The phrase “Economically viable use” is a legal term of art, meaning the minimum amount of development or use of one’s property necessary to avoid a regulatory taking. When scrutinizing this project, it's important to realize that any further reduction in development area or structure sq.

Ft. may be presumed to effect a taking of the applicant’s land, thereby depriving the applicant of any and all reasonable use of its property and depriving him of his constitutional rights.

While applicants may commonly complain that a regulation or the application of a regulation may effect a taking, and such complaints by applicants may often seem tenuous or even hyperbolic, we can assure you in this case that were the City to extend its reach beyond the objective development standards and findings listed above, that a regulatory taking would occur.

The appellant is asking the City to reduce the project development area and square footage to that which is below the minimum amount contemplated by the LCP necessary to avoid a taking. The appellant's request is not fair, reasonable, or consistent with the code. Since the LCP was adopted in 2002, the City has not once required an applicant to limit their home or pad size below the development area limits of 4.7.1 or the TDSF allowances under 3.6(K) of the LIP and there is no good cause to make this project the first.

As noted above, the project complies with all the development standards in the ESHA Chapter of the LIP and the required findings can be made.

Appeal Argument #2: Moving the house five feet closer to the street is required to minimize impacts to Stream ESHA
Applicant Response #2: The applicant is already seeking a Minor Modification request to allow for a 50% reduction in the front yard setback to maximize the setback of the house to the stream.

As proposed, the project is located 15 feet from the street. Now the appellant asks the City in its appeal to force a redesign of the entire project (septic system, architectural plans, grading plans, landscaping plans, etc.), to move the house 5’ closer to the street and 5’ further away from the stream.

The appellant’s argument is supported only by lay opinion and does not provide substantial evidence that the project as designed will impact ESHA, or that shifting the house 5’ towards the street will minimize these assumed impacts to ESHA.

The applicant, however, provides the City with substantial evidence in the following forms:

1. The applicant’s Biologist has stated in his report that, “...moving the house 5 or even 10 ft.

Closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area ...As currently designed the proposed house will not have any significant impacts to the drainage. (Source: May 3, 2022, Report by Forde Biological Consultants.)

2. The applicant’s AOWTS Engineer also found that, “With the additional treatment and low volume [of wastewater] dosed, distribution to the dispersal area, EEI designed the system to have no adverse impacts on the surrounding water bodies, diurnal creek, or groundwater.” (Source:

Ensitu Engineering AOWTS Design Report dated June 26, 2022). 370

3. Planning Staff and the City Biologist have concurred with the Project Biologist and wastewater engineer’s comments above, finding that there were “no direct impacts to ESHA expected as a result of the proposed project.” (Source: February 22, 2022, staff report).

In conclusion, the house was sited and designed to avoid all impacts to ESHA. Provided that there will be no impacts to ESHA from the project, consideration of further project alternatives is not necessary or appropriate.

Appellant Argument #3: Approving the Variance for the setback reduction will afford a privilege to the applicant not enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated.

Applicant Response #3: The proposed setbacks from the stream are similar to those on West Sea Level Drive. The applicant’s proposed home is smaller than the average of the surrounding homes along West Sea Level Dr. The proposed ESHA setback of 47’ is consistent with the average stream setback of 53 feet, for the 4 adjacent homes located along the west side of the street which are adjacent to the stream (See Exhibit 8 attached). The Applicant’s setback of its AOWTS to the stream is 99’, which is greater than the average of its neighbors at 89’. (See Exhibit 7 Attached).

The smallest setback between a residence and the stream in question is 42 feet (vs. the applicant’s 47’). Out of the seven structures located along the stream near West Sea Level, four structures have setbacks less than 100-feet from the stream (See Exhibit 6, attached).

The smallest setback between an OWTS and the stream on West Sea Level Dr. is 77 feet. There is also an OWTS on the other side of the stream with a smaller setback of 74 feet. Out of eight OWTS’ along the stream near West Sea Level Dr., five have a setback of under 100 feet (See Exhibit 8, attached.)
In Conclusion, the proposed residence and AOWTS setbacks are remarkably similar to the homes surrounding the project. As designed, the project does not afford the applicant any special Privilege to the applicant not enjoyed by others similarly situated; therefore, the variance finding required by LIP 13.26.5(C) can and should be made.

Conclusion
Staff’s alternative analysis concluded that the project “maximizes the setback from the creek, minimizes the impacts to ESHA to the extent feasible, and does not result in any significant adverse impacts.” (Source: February 22, 2022, Planning Commission staff report).

The applicant worked with Planning staff to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission by working with both the septic consultant and the project biologist, to confirm the proposed 3- bedroom SFR and OWTS are feasible and will not impact the creek. The project consultants further confirmed that there were no impacts to the creek. Consideration of further project alternatives is unwarranted as you cannot mitigate a project impact that does not exist. These observations, along with the findings approved on May 1, 2023, demonstrate the proposed residence is the least environmentally damaging alternative and is compliant with the LCP. 371
Please find the following exhibits as attachments to accompany this correspondence:
• Exhibit 1: A letter from Andrew M. Forde, Forde Biological Consultants regarding the biological impacts of the SFR and OWTS reduction.
• Exhibit 2: An overlay exhibit depicting surrounding fuel modification along Sea Level Drive.
• Exhibit 3: A letter from John Yaroslaski, ENSITU Engineering Inc the impacts on the OWTS for the subject property.
• Exhibit 4: Drainage Plan created by Trisha Coffey, AHSIRT Engineering • Exhibit 5: An exhibit demonstrating the design of the drainage plan completed by Trisha Coffey, AHSIRT Engineering.
• Exhibit 6: An overlay exhibit demonstrating similar single-family residence setbacks from the stream/riparian habitat.
• Exhibit 7: An overlay exhibit demonstrating similar OWTS setbacks from the stream/riparian habitat.
• Exhibit 8: Resolution 23-03, as approved by the Planning Commission on May 1, 2023. • Exhibit 9: Alternatives Analysis prepared for February 22, 2022, Planning Commission Hearing
Please contact us if you have any questions about this submittal's contents. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
372
"Dedicated to achieving higher standards in onsite and decentralized wastewater systems." Engineering Inc
7475 Carmelita Ave
Atascadero, CA
93422
Tel: 805.772.0150
Fax: 805.772.0813
[email protected]

Page 1 of 3 ends

John N. Yaroslaski PE 60149
Ensitu Engineering Inc.
780 Monterey Avenue Suite B
Morro Bay, CA 93442
May 27, 2022
Garo Bedrossian
1033 Carol Drive #T14
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Subject: Subject: 31864 Sea Level Drive Malibu, CA – Design Alternatives Dear Mr. Bedrossian:

PART 1 – SCOPE OF WORK
We completed the following work for this study:
• Re-configure the submitted OWTS to reduce setbacks to the ephemeral “blue line” creek using 3-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms as a basis for wastewater flow.

PART 2 – FINDINGS
1) General
Based on loading rates similar to the original OWTS, EEI was able to reconfigure the dispersal field layout to increase the distance from the dispersal field to the blue line by eight (8) feet for a 3-bedroom house and 11’-6” for a 2-Bedroom house. Due to the level of treatment proposed and natural attenuation in the soil the additional 3’-6” by reducing the house to a 2-bedroom should not have any potential additional impact on the blue line.
2) 3-Bedroom House
Based on additional calculations and relocating the treatment tank to the proposed driveway (with reduced setbacks from tank to structure and tank to field). The minimum setback from the dispersal field was increased from 87’-0” to 95’-0” (see Figure 1). 3) 2-Bedroom House
Based on additional calculations and relocating the treatment tank to the proposed driveway (with reduced setbacks from tank to structure and tank to field). The minimum setback from the dispersal field was increased from 87’-0” to 98’-6” (see Figure 2). 373
"Dedicated to achieving higher standards in onsite and decentralized wastewater systems." Engineering Inc
7475 Carmelita Ave
Atascadero, CA
93422
Tel: 805.772.0150
Fax: 805.772.0813
[email protected]

Page 2 of 3 ends

Figure 1 3-Bedroom Residence Alternative OWTS Plan
Figure 2 2-Bedroom Alternative OWTS Plan
374
"Dedicated to achieving higher standards in onsite and decentralized wastewater systems." Engineering Inc
7475 Carmelita Ave
Atascadero, CA
93422
Tel: 805.772.0150
Fax: 805.772.0813
[email protected]

Page 3 of 3 ends

PART 3 – DISTRIBUTION
This report should be sent to all the design consultants for the above project including:
architect; structural engineer; geologist; geotechnical engineer; coastal engineer; civil engineer; and others.

Any persons concerned with this project who observe conditions or features of the site or its surroundings that are different from those described in this report should notify EEI immediately for evaluation.

Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions, or require additional assistance please feel free to contact me at (805) 772-0150.

Sincerely,
John N. Yaroslaski PE 60149
Ensitu Engineering Inc.

Project Engineer
375
Benjamin Suber
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200,
Agoura Hills, CA 91301 May 3, 2022
RE – 31864 Sea Level Drive, City of Malibu, California
To Whom It May Concern,
Forde Biological Consultants (Forde) conducted a Biological Inventory at the property commonly known as 31864 Sea Level Drive, City of Malibu and prepared a report dated October 3, 2011. The report concluded that there was no Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) on the property. Steve Nelson also conducted a Biological Inventory and Assessment and prepared a report dated July 8, 2004. That report also concluded that there was no ESHA on the property. Both reports concluded that a drainage occurs adjacent the properties western boundary. The drainage has some native vegetation including protected native trees, but non-native vegetation dominates. The drainage is expected to support common species; however, special-status species are not expected to occur. The proposed house will not propose any new fuel modification clearance, as the area is heavily cleared already due to the density of surrounding residences on all sides of the subject lot.

We have been asked to opine on whether moving the proposed residence closer to the street would provide a benefit biologically to the aforementioned drainage. The consulting waste water engineer John Yaroslaski, of ENSITU Engineering stated in his letter that an elimination of the 3rd bedroom of the proposed Single-Family Residence would result in a reduction of the required leaching area for the septic system. This would allow the applicant to move his house 5 feet closer to the street.

In my professional opinion moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area. There would be no changes to fuel modification, run off, noise or light. As currently designed the proposed house will not have any significant impacts to the drainage.

Thank you for the opportunity to opine on this matter, and please don’t hesitate to contact me should you need any additional information or materials.
.

Sincerely,
Andrew McGinn Forde
1 0 6 6 4 P R E S I L L A R O A D • S A N T A R O S A V A L L E Y , C A • 9 3 0 1 2 P H O N E : 8 0 5 3 0 2 - 7 1 6 5 • F A X : 8 0 5 9 8 7 - 7 8 4 1 W W W . F O R D E B I O . C O M • E-M A I L : I N F O @ F O R D E B I O . C O M 1 0 6 6 4 P R E S I L L A R O A D • S A N T A R O S A V A L L E Y , C A • 9 3 0 1 2 P H O N E : 8 0 5 3 0 2 - 7 1 6 5 • F A X : 8 0 5 9 8 7 - 7 8 4 1 W W W . F O R D E B I O . C O M • E-M A I L : I N F O @ F O R D E B I O . C O M

B I O L O G I C A L C O N S U L T A N T S
376
"Dedicated to achieving higher standards in onsite and decentralized wastewater systems." Engineering Inc
7475 Carmelita Ave
Atascadero, CA
93422
Tel: 805.772.0150
Fax: 805.772.0813
[email protected]

Page 1 of 1 ends

John N. Yaroslaski PE 60149
Ensitu Engineering Inc.
780 Monterey Avenue Suite B
Morro Bay, CA 93442
June 26, 2022
Garo Bedrossian
1033 Carol Drive #T14
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Subject: Subject: 31864 Sea Level Drive Malibu, CA – Effluent Quality and Impacts Dear Mr. Bedrossian:

PART 1 – FINDINGS
The project is designed to treat the wastewater from the residence to State Water Resources Control Board “California Ocean Plan” standards and Santa Monica Bay TMDL standards. The system is also designed with redundant disinfection (two disinfection units in series). With the additional treatment and low volume dosed distribution to the dispersal area EEI designed the system to have no adverse impacts on the surrounding water bodies, diurnal creek, or groundwater.

Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions, or require additional assistance please feel free to contact me at (805) 772-0150.

Sincerely,

John N. Yaroslaski PE 60149
Ensitu Engineering Inc.

Project Engineer 60149
06/20
377

2. SURROUNDING
FUEL

MODIFICATION
378
AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC
PROJECT INFORMATION, EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN 197-01 AUGUST 2019 TAC TJM G1 OF 4 “ ” “ ”
N
N
“ ”
–
’
’
“ ” “ ”
” ” ”
“ ”
’
’ ·
····
379
AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 197-01 AUGUST 2019 TAC TJM G2 OF 4 N
380

SECTION B-B NOT TO SCALE
B
B
AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC
LSWPPP AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 197-01 AUGUST 2019 TAC TJM G3 OF 4 N
··
····
·······
381
PAVER APPLICATION 3" MIN. 3" MIN. 3" MIN. PAVER BASE SECTION AT DURASLOPE CHANNEL EXISTING SOILS. 4" CONCRETE SLAB SLAB APPLICATION H20 RATED GRATE PER ARCHITECT PLANS LANDSCAPE APPLICATION NOT VEHICLE RATED VEHICLE APPLICATION NOT H20 RATED AHSIRT

ENGINEERING INC
NOTES 197-01 AUGUST 2019 TJM TAC G4 OF 4
“ ”
“ ”
“
”
“ ”
··
382
Designed to Treat to the 85th Percentile
383
384
67’
42’
44’
159’
144’
80’
113’

7. BUILDING

SETBACKS
385
82’
108’
95’
128’
74’
103’

8. SEPTIC

SETBACKS
77’
69’
386

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 05-08 1 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,799 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE PLUS A 398 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND 995 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT. 240 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR DECK, 349 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR DECK, 125 SQUARE FOOT

SECOND FLOOR BALCONY, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AND ONSITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 09-023

FOR CONSTRUCTION IN A STREAM ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
HABITAT AREA BUFFER, VARIANCE NO. 16-024 TO ALLOW FOR THE SEPTIC SYSTEM’S DISPERSAL FIELD TO EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CREEK, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 06- 032 FOR HEIGHT OVER 18 FEET BUT NOT TO EXCEED 26 FEET, 2 INCHES

FOR A PITCHED ROOF, IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 31864 SEA LEVEL DRIVE (NAJARIAN

AND BEDROSSIAN)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On April 26, 2005, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 05-081 was submitted to the Planning Department. Variance (VAR) Nos. 09-023 and 16-024, and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 06-032 were subsequently assigned to the project. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On May 12, 2020, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On August 3, 2020, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed the project and made recommendations to the Planning Commission.

D. On January 18, 2022, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit after story poles representing the location, height and bulk ofthe proposed residential building were installed.

E. On January 19, 2022, staff deemed the application complete for processing.

F. On January 27, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

G. On February 22, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the subject item to a date uncertain.
387
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 2 of 22 ends

H. On November 10, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On December 5, 2022, prior to a public hearing, the Planning Commission granted a request from the applicant to continue the subject item to a date uncertain.

J. On January 12, 2023, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

K. On February 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and granted a motion to continue the item to the April 3, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

L. On April 3, 2023, the subject item was continued to the April 17, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

M. On April 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. By a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Hill and Mazza dissenting, the Planning Commission directed staffto bring back a resolution approving the project with a new condition to revise the exterior lighting to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and a revision to the cultural resource monitoring.

N. On May 1, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment and analyzed the proposal as described above. The Planning Commission has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e)—New Construction or Conversion ofSmall Structures. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 17, 2023, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 05-081 for the construction of a new 1,799 square foot, two-story single-family residence plus a 398 square foot attached garage and 995 square foot basement, 240 square foot ground-floor deck, 349 square foot second floor deck, 125 square foot second floor balcony, permeable driveway and onsite wastewater 388
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 3 of 22 ends

treatment system (OWTS); including VAR No. 09-023 for construction in a stream Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer, VAR No. 16-024 for the septic system’s dispersal field to extend into the required 100-foot setback from the creek, and SPR No. 06-032 for height over 18 feet but not to exceed 26 feet, 2 inches for a pitched roofi in the Single Family, Medium Density (SFM) zoning district located at 31864 Sea Level Drive.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards inclusive of the variances and SPR.

2. The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, a public pedestrian easement was previously granted to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority over West Sea Level Drive. The proposed development will not impede or infringe on this easement in any way. The proposed development is entirely within a private property with no direct connection to any recreational or coastal resources and is therefore, in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976.

3. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed project maximizes the setback from the creek, minimizes the impacts to ESHA to the extent feasible, and does not result in any significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The ERB reviewed the proposed project and provided a list offour recommendations.

The proposed project either complies or will be conditioned to comply with three of the four recommendations. However, the recommendation that requires the property owners to extend the fuel modification beyond the westerly property line is not feasible since the property owners do not have the right to conduct fuel modification on someone else’s property. In any event, the LACFD requires that the neighboring property owner to the west conduct their own fuel modification within 200 feet of any surrounding building. Should the fuel modification not be cleared in compliance with the LACFD requirements, LACFD is then responsible to clear the area and sends a statement for the cost to the property owner where the fuel modification was cleared.

B. Variance No. 09-023 for New Development within ESHA Buffer (LIP Section 13.26.5) VAR No. 09-023 is a request to allow new development to encroach into a stream ESHA buffer.

Page 4 of 22 ends

similar development limitations related proximity to ESHA. As such, there is no way to site the proposed residence to avoid encroachment into the buffer. Strict application ofthe zoning ordinance would deprive the property owners of the same development configuration and siting enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning and constraints.

2. With the incorporation ofthe recommended conditions ofapproval, the granting ofa variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and SFM zone district in which the property is located. The project is designed to minimize grading and landform alteration by utilizing the flattest area of the property. The project complies with the 1,738 square foot development area required for this variance to minimize impacts to ESHA. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. The granting ofthe variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners in that single-family residences have been developed on properties in the immediate vicinity with reduced setbacks from ESHA similar to the requested variance. In addition, the proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation. The neighboring properties to the south and north, which are developed with singlefamily residences, are also adjacent to ESHA. Therefore, granting ofthe variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners.

4. The granting of the variance is to allow new development within the stream ESHA buffer. Based on the size ofthe subject parcel and location of nearby creek, the development of any size will be located within the 100-foot stream ESHA buffer and therefore, the requested variance could not be avoided. However, the proposed project is in line with other neighboring developments and it is in compliance with all applicable ESHA requirements, including the 1,738 square foot development area. The project will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent ofthe zoning provisions nor contrary to or in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP, pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A).

5. The project consists ofthe construction of a new two-story residence and an attached two-car garage and basement. The granting ofthe variance is for new development to extend into a stream ESHA buffer. Evidence in the record demonstrates that there is no environmentally superior siting location and the total development area for the proposed project is 1,719 square feet; less than 1,738 square feet, which is the maximum allowable pursuant to LIP Section 4.7.

6. The subject parcel is zoned SFM which allows for residential development. The proposed project includes the construction of a two-story single-family residence which is a permitted use in the subject zone. Approval ofthe variance would permit the proposed encroachment into the stream ESHA buffer. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the SFM Zone.

7. The project will consist ofthe construction ofa single-family residence on the subject parcel. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed residence because with the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval the stream ESHA shall be protected.

Specifically, the subject parcel is physically suitable for the construction of a single-family residence, decks and OWTS with the incorporation of the proposed variance. 390
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 5 of 22 ends

8. The variance complies with all requirements of State and local laws.

C. Variance No. 16-024 for the Septic System’s Dispersal Field to Extend into the Required 100-foot Setback from the Creek (LIP Section 13.26.5) VAR No. 16-024 is proposed for the septic system’s dispersal field to extend into the required 100- foot setback from the creek.

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject parcel has exceptional physical constraints that limit the location of development such a stream near the parcel’s rear lot line and small parcel size. The proposed dispersal system is located between the proposed residence and Sea Level Drive as far from the creek as feasible. However, there is no way to site the dispersal area to avoid encroachment into the stream ESHA buffer. Therefore, the strict application ofthe code would deprive the property owners of the ability to develop the property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

2. The proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health, or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. The proposed variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners in that many other properties in the vicinity are developed with single-family residences and include septic systems.

4. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

6. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject parcel.

7. The proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical staff and City Public Works Department as being physically suitable for the proposed variance.

8. The variance complies with all requirements of State and local laws.

D. Site Plan Review No. 06-032 for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27)
SPR No. 06-03 2 is requested for the construction of a new single-family residence over 18 feet for a maximum of 26 feet, 2 inches in height with a pitched roof.

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project is consistent with policies and provisions of the LCP.
391
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 6 of 22 ends

2. Based on the surrounding topography and existing development, the proposed project will blend with the surrounding built environment and will not have an adverse effect on neighborhood character.

3. The story pole photos show that given the surrounding topography and existing development, the proposed project will blend with the surrounding built environment and does not have a significant impact on public views.

4. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and LCP.

6. The proposed residence is not expected to obstruct visually impressive scenes ofthe Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing areas of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 1 7.40.040(A)(l 7).

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

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that no alternative exists that would avoid encroachment of fuel modification into the stream ESHA buffer and the strict application of the ESHA overlay ordinance would preclude single-family residential development on the subject parcel.

2. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the LCP. The proposed development area (1,719 square feet) is less than 25 percent of the lot area, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.7.1. The proposed development area has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist.

F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project, as conditioned, will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

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

3. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. Evidence in the record demonstrates that there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen any adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity as none are expected as a result of the proposed project. 392
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 7 of 22 ends

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 05-081, VARNos. 09-023 and 16-024, and SPRNo. 06-032, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Construction of a new, 1,799 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached 398-square foot garage and 995-square foot basement. The first floor includes 1,003 square feet plus a 398 square foot attached garage. The second floor is 796 square feet. The structure will not exceed 26 feet, 2 inches in height. b. A permeable driveway of approximately 366 square feet; c. Understructure grading ofapproximately 455 cubic yards and non-exempt grading of approximately 120 cubic yards (Exhibit 2);
d. OWTS; and
e. Discretionary Requests:
i. Variance (VAR) No. 09-023 for construction within a stream ESHA buffer; ii. VAR No. 16-024 for the septic system’s dispersal field to extend into the required 100-foot setback from the creek; and
iii. Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 06-032 to allow the construction of a singlefamily residence with a maximum height of 26 feet, 2 inches for a pitched roof.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions ofapproval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped December 1, 2021 for architectural and landscaping plans and April24, 2020 for civil plans.

The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

Page 8 of 22 ends

Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

5. The applicant shall submit three (3) complete sets of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

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

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

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the coastal development permit approved by the City is void.

11. The property owners must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

12. A qualified archaeologist must be present at the site to monitor all site excavation. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the property owners or applicant must provide evidence that an archaeologist has been contracted to perform the required monitoring. After the monitoring is concluded, the qualified archaeologist is required to provide a summary in writing describing the monitoring findings.

Page 9 of 22 ends

Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 1 7.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

14. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification ofthe coroner. Ifthe coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Lighting

15. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

16. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited. 1 7. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.

18. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.
1 9. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

21. Three violations ofthe conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site. 395
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 10 ends

Fencing and Walls

22. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

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

24. Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within ESHA, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration. Fencing or walls that do not permit the fiee passage of wildlife shall be prohibited in any wildlife corridor.

25. Development adjacent to, but not within ESHA, may include fencing, if necessary for security, that is limited to the area around the clustered development area.

Site Specific Conditions

26. The property owners / applicant shall install sprinklers within the understory of the rear ground-floor deck and residence should such area not be enclosed with concrete or stucco walls on all sides.

27. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the applicant/property owners shall provide a pre-construction assessment of the existing condition of West Sea Level Drive to the subject parcel. A copy of this assessment shall be kept on file with the City. The applicant/property owners shall be responsible for repairs ofany damage to the road that may result during the construction phase ofthe proposed project. Any obvious damage to the road that becomes apparent during the construction phase (including, but not limited to, potholes, cracks and ripples) shall be immediately repaired by the applicant/property owners. Prior to a Planning Department final inspection, the applicant/property owners shall submit a postconstruction assessment ofthe road to demonstrate compliance with this condition. A photo survey shall be utilized to complete this assessment.

28. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant / property owner must submit exterior lighting plans must be revised to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance.

Building Plan Check
Construction / Framing

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

30. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to plan check submittal.
396
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 11 ends

31. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

32. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

33. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP5) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

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

35. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owners are required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department ofTransportation.

Biology / Landscaping

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

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time. 397
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 12 ends

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

38. 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 owners’ signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 9.22.

39. No portion of the project development shall be placed within the protected zone of a protected native tree.

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

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

42. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use ofbuilding materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.

43. Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the southern limits of grading.

Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning ofany construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

44. Construction fencing shall be installed at the rear property boundary and around the protected zone (5 feet from the dripline or 15 feet from the trunk) of any oak tree prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas — particularly the stream north of the property.

45. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the landscape and fuel modification plan. Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

46. Native species of the Santa Monica Mountains, characteristic of the local habitat, shall be used on graded slopes or where slope plantings are required for slope stabilization, erosion control, and watershed protection. Plants should be selected to have a variety of rooting depths. A spacing of 15 feet between large woody (?10-foot canopy) shrubs is recommended by the LACFD. Lawns are prohibited on slopes> 5 percent.

47. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division. 398
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 13 ends

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

49. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of42 inches. Three violations ofthis condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

50. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

51. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

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

53. Other than the approved 710 square feet ofturf, no non-native plants are permitted in the rear yard and all plants shall be suitable for adjacent monarch butterfly habitat.

Fuel Modification

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

Public Works

55. A digital drawing (Aut0CAD) ofthe project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet ofthe property limits, and post-construction BMPs 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, outlets, post-construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

56. 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.
399
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 14 ends

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

57. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,000 cubic yards, cut and fill.

58. The total grading yardage verification certificate shall be copied onto the coversheet of the Grading Plan. No alternative formats or substitutes will be accepted.

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

60. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits ofland to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation ofthe septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated; e. Ifthe property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing ofthese areas shall be delineated on this plan as required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inches in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.
400
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 15 ends

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence Sediment Controls Silt Fence Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance 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.

62. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section l7.3.2.B.2.

63. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section

17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis ofthe pre-development and post-development drainage ofthe site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design ofthe project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

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

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 3 1, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources. 401
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 16 ends

65. The Building Official may approve grading during the rainy season to remediate hazardous geologic conditions that endanger public health and safety.

66. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3. A note shall be placed on the on the project that addresses this condition.

67. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion offinal grading.

68. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP shall meet all the requirements ofthe City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP5);
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofitrate 1 .5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring ofthe proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review ofthe WQMP shall be paid prior to the start ofthe technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval ofthe 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 veri~~ the installation ofthe BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Geology

69. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical staff shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical staff prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
402
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 17 ends

70. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Feature

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

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

3.5.3(A).

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

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

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

76. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section 13 .04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.

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

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System

78. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official, compliance with the City ofMalibu’s OWTS regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.

79. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements ofthe MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features ofthe OWTS and 403
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 18 ends

must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

80. A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWlS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

81. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation ofthe OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42 inches tall.

82. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing fixture equivalents, and/or the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design;
b. Description ofproposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.

State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); maj or components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; c. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day.

Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
d. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to 404
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 19 ends

clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

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

83. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

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

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

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

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

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

89. The City geotechnical staff final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
405
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 20 of 22 ends

90. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area if applicable.

91. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit.

Water Quality I Water Service

92. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve Letter from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.

Prior to Occupancy

93. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owners / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

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

95. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summaiy Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department.

Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled, and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

96. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion ofthe Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

97. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part ofthe approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

98. The property owners are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnif~ and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure ofthe permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an 406
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 21 ends

inherent risk to life and property. The property owners shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning department staff prior to final planning approval.

99. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 15-2 1.

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

Fixed Conditions
100. This coastal development permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.
101. Violation of any ofthe conditions ofthis approval may be cause for revocation ofthis permit and termination of all rights granted thereunder.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ day f May 2023.

DE IS R. SMITH, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

DIDr ~
REB’CCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice ofFinal Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.
407
Resolution No. 23-03

Page 22 of 22 ends

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-03 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City ofMalibu at the Regular meeting held on the ~ day ofMay 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Commissioners: Peak, Mazza, Hill, Jennings, Smith NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
dl
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
408

Page 11 of 24 ends

and is therefore, in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976.

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

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

1. Smaller Project – The smallest allowed residence within the City of Malibu is 800 square feet. While a home of this size would considerably reduce the development footprint, it would not substantially reduce anticipated environmental impacts and may not provide the property owners with reasonable, economically viable use of the property. LIP Section 4.7, Economically Viable Use, permits a maximum development area of 25 percent of the parcel. This provision restricts the footprint of any structures, yet permits the construction of a second story (consistent with other applicable restrictions). The proposed development area of 1,719 square foot is consistent with these restrictions.

2. No Basement – The proposed residence includes a basement of 995 square feet.2 This basement necessitates the majority of the proposed 455 cubic yards of grading.

While grading quantities would be reduced if the basement were removed from the project, there are currently no identified environmental concerns associated with this understructure grading. The Phase II Archaeological Report prepared for the project concludes, “Regardless of how much excavation work is carried out in the future, the possibility of impacting significant archaeological resources is near zero.” Therefore, this alternative to eliminate the basement does not lessen a significant impact.

3. Farther from Creek – The proposed septic system (tank and dispersal area) is located at the front of the property between the house and the street, as far from the creek as possible. The proposed structure has also been sited as far from the creek as possible (50 feet). There is no alternative to site the development outside the stream ESHA buffer. Because of the proximity of the creek and the required 100- foot width of the ESHA buffer, there is no way to avoid a variance for construction within the stream ESHA buffer.

4. Proposed Project – The proposed project maximizes the setback from the creek, minimizes the impacts to ESHA to the extent feasible, and does not result in any significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative.
2 A basement of 1,000 square feet or less does not count towards a project’s total development square footage limit. 409
1 From: Elizabeth Lynch .com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:57 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 5 B

EXHIBIT G
410
2 411
3 412
4 413
5 414
415
7 416
8 417
9 418
419
420
12 Sent from my iPad
421
1 From: Liz .com>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Item 5b
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: "LYNCH, BRAD (MFO‐Cairo)" org>
Date: February 17, 2022 at 12:22:10 PM PST
To: Liz .com>
Subject: RE: Item 5b
Good luck
From: Liz .com>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 10:05 PM
To: LYNCH, BRAD (MFO‐Cairo) .org>
Subject: Item 5b
Sent from my iPhone
This e‐mail and any files attached to it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. The information may also be legally privileged. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e‐mail from your system. While the MFO seeks to ensure that this message is error and virus‐free, full security of this email cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the sender disclaims any liability for damage caused by this email. 422
To: Chair Hill and the members of the Planning
Commission,Patricia Salazar and Kelsey Pettijohn
Submitted by:

Elizabeth C Lynch, Esq , Attorney at Law and Glenn H
Lynch
Re: Item 5.B. planning commission meeting 2/22/22
REQUEST:

NO VARIANCES BE GRANTED for coastal development
permit number 05–081 including three variances which
would allow: building in an ESHA, allowing the septic
system dispersal field to extend into the required 100 foot setback from the creek as well as a site plan review
regarding the height over 18 feet.

FACTS:

General description of the area:

West Sea Level Drive extends from Broad Beach Road to
the ocean. On the west side of Sea Level Drive there are five undeveloped lots, all located in an ESHA. All five lots are less than 100 feet from Encinal Creek “ – –the
stream”. The lot that is the subject of this permit, Lot 165, located at 31864 W. Sea level Drive, is one of the above mentioned lots – – Five contiguous, nonconforming,
undersized lots owned by several different owners. Not
423
one of these lots can be developed without several
variances being granted and in particular, a septic
variance.

Chronological timeline:

Malibu’s plan to set the septic system as 100 feet from the stream was adopted in September 2002.

The current owners purchased the restricted property in March 2019
The reasoning for denying the variance is that the
difficulties created by denying the variance were created by purchasing a property with a septic system restriction already in place.

Thus, the owners are denied claiming a “taking’ by the
fact that they bought the restricted property and it was restricted prior to purchase, not after purchase.

Further, the owners cannot claim special circumstances
because similar properties, i.e. the undeveloped four lots adjacent to lot 165 are primarily under the identical zoning classification with similar developmental limitations
related to the proximity to the stream.

It should be noted that there are lots that have been
developed on the west side of Sea Level Drive. These
three lots, south of lot 165, were developed in the 1990s.

The lots were created by subdivision. One lot is 11,720 sq 424
feet and the other lot is 10,724 sq ft. Page 1 staff report application 5–8 9–1037. The application was approved
with conditions requiring a 50 foot septic system set back from Encinal Creek. (Pg 6 Application number.: 5–8 9–
1037 heard by the Coastal Commission on 3/13–16/19.)
Therefore, the reasoning found on page 15 of the staff
report for the upcoming hearing is not applicable—the
reasoning being,“the strict application of the code would deprive property owners availability to develop the
property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

If the document refers to other undeveloped properties in the vicinity then the only ones that are in the ESHA are the three properties to the south and four properties to the north of lot 165.

To the south, the lots are vastly larger than lot 165,
furthermore they were built at a time when the setback
requirement for the septic was 50 feet. It is not a viable argument to say that everything is equal. Just because a lot is much larger and was built in another time does not entitle the applicant to claim that he doesn’t have the same privilege as the next-door neighbor
Similarly, granting a variance is against public interest and safety. Not only will one variance have to be granted, but five variances will have to be granted to develop the area.

Therefore, five septic systems located within 100 feet of the stream could not only eviscerate any public health
425
considerations, but the impact of a septic malfunction on the stream could be enormous.

Of further note, Encinal Creek , “the stream”, empties into the ocean within a few hundred feet of lot 165. Seepage from the septic systems could cause unimaginable
damage to the sea life and the ocean in general.

CONCLUSION
The variances should be denied for all the for the following reasons: the burden was self created, the necessity of
granting multiple variances to other parties, the party does not suffer special circumstances. In addition, the applicant cannot claim they’re denied special privileges enjoyed by the neighbors. In addition there are huge public safety implications.

This document has been submitted based on the
information and belief the facts alleged in this report are true. Further, should it be necessary we request the right to submit an amendment.

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch
31862 W. Sea Level Dr.
426
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:23 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: Item 5B 31864 Sea Level Drive
Attachments: Comment. Sea Level Dr 22.02.21 Monarch.docx Patricia Salazar | Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 245
From: Georgia Goldfarb < .net>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 2:46 PM
To: Kraig Hill < .com>; John Mazza .net>; Jeffrey D Jennings .com>; Dennis Smith < .COM>; Mark Wetton < .com>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5B 31864 Sea Level Drive
Dear Commissioners,
Please see attached for comment on Sea Level Drive.

Georgia Goldfarb
427
Dear Commissioners:

Native milkweed has grown along the coast, in the coast range for unknown time, at least since about the 60s. It has currently been observed growing wild in numerous areas including Bluffs Park, Heathercliff, Leo Carrillo, Pt Dume and private residences. Regarding the theoretical concern that milkweed itself will cause monarch butterflies to break diapause (their nonreproductive state during the period of overwintering), solid scientific proof does not exist in my and others’ opinion. Many, including myself, think reproductive activity during the overwintering period is more likely related to temperature, i.e. warm temperatures.

As you probably know, western monarchs are in a phase of quasi-extinction, their numbers having dropped during the overwintering count of 2020 to 2,000 from historical levels of more than a million in the last century. The population decline is due to human encroachment, removing the food and habitat for both caterpillars and butterflies (milkweed and pollinator plants); and use of pesticides. This year for as yet unknown reasons the overwintering population resurged to about 250,000, but the threat of extinction is not over.

Given the certainty that both milkweed and pollinator plants – including those blooming in winter – are required for butterfly survival, and the lack of evidence re whether or not the presence of milkweed near an overwintering site is detrimental, I support the planting of native milkweeds at this property. Asclepias californica is particularly important since it is an early emerging milkweed which provides food for the first generation of larvae from monarchs leaving the overwintering site. https://calscape.org/Asclepias-californica-() A. fascicularis and A. eriocarpa, which emerge later, are also native to the Santa Monica Mountains and Malibu and should be included in a milkweed garden. https://calscape.org/Asclepias-fascicularis-(Narrow-LeafMilkweed)?srchcr=sc568b82681ffe9 https://calscape.org/Asclepias-eriocarpa-() Therefore, we urge you to require both native milkweeds and pollinator plants, of all seasons, of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Thank you,
Georgia Goldfarb
Malibu Monarch Project
Outreach & Science
Malibu Monarch Project
20650 Whitecap Way
Malibu, California 90265
[email protected]
428
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:23 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 5B 2-22-22 sealevel dr.

Attachments: pc 2-22-22 sealeveldr. (1).docx
Received.

Thank you,
Patricia Salazar | Senior Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 245
From: healy com>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Kraig Hill .com>; Jeffrey D Jennings .com>; John Mazza net>; Dennis Smith .COM>; Mark Wetton < .com>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 5B 2‐22‐22 sealevel dr.

Commissions, attached are MCSG's cmments on 5B. et me know if you have questions. Patt 429
1 To Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG) by Patt Healy Date 2-22-22
Agenda Item 5B Coastal Development Permit No. 05-081/31864 Sea Level Honorable Commissioners:

If this project is not denied outright, we respectfully ask that it be denied without prejudice or continued giving the applicant the opportunity to redesign. Prior to approval we think further studies are needed.

Square Footage
According to staff report the total allowable square footage is 1737 sq.ft.,(25% of the lot size). In calculating square footage the applicant/ Staff counted only the square footage of the residence and excluded the above ground garage which is 349 square feet bringing the proposed square footage for the project to 2069 square feet when the maximum allowed is 25% of the lot which is 1737 square feet.

Just because the applicant is allowed 25% the lot area for a structure doesn’t mean they should be allowed the maximum allowable footage especially since the residence is so close to a blue line stream ESHA and 4 additional residences will be constructed along this blue line stream in the future.

We recommend the residence be redesigned to be the same size as the residence beside the Creek at the entrance to Sea Level Dr. which according to the website REDFIN is 1093 sq ft. and that all future applicants be limited to 25% of the lot size but no greater than 1093 square feet.

Road Widening
Furthermore, if the road widening is occurring on any portion of the applicant’s property, this amount has to be deducted from the gross size of the lot and the structure size reduce accordingly.
430
2 Basement
Has the level of the groundwater been studied? How high will it be in wet years when the water table is high ? The city has to be confident their will be no basement flooding. If unknown, a groundwater study must be done because of the residence proximity to Encinal Creek. One should be sure there will not be a situation like La Paz where groundwater was reached during excavation. Moreover, this appears to be a spec house and a new resident owner should be assured there will be no basement flooding.

Cultural Resources
Because creeks were the water source, the Chumash built their villages beside creeks, Encinal Creek was no exception. A Chumash burial site was found between Sea Level Dr and this creek. Most likely these artifacts would be buried beneath the fill that staff says covers the site.

Clearly having a monitor for 3 ft of excavation only is not enough.

See https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-05-24-me-138-story.htmlon regarding excavation of Chumash remains.

Therefore, we disagree with the Archeologist assessment there no cultural resources onsite.
.The applicant should be required to have a Chumash Monitor on site during all grading, excavation and other soil disturbance to be sure artifacts are preserved.

In addition LCP requirements re Cultural Recources need to be adhered to.

Permeable Surfaces
What percentage of the lot is permeable ? Does it meet the city requirement for lot permeability?
431
3 Ground Floor Rear Deck
Is the ground floor deck permeable? Is it fire resistant? If not, it shouldn’t be allowed.

How far is the deck set back from the creek? Decks are development and development is not allowed within 100 feet of this creek, a blue line stream. Hence the deck in any event should be eliminated.

Protecting Resident Views
Just because residents didn’t file for view protection doesn’t mean they should be denied this protection. Currently residents across the street from these 5 vacant lots have views of this creek ESHA and its trees.

Most residents are unaware they have the ability to protect their views.

Staff should be cognizant of this fact and require this and future residences on these vacant lots be one story. Otherwise, the residents will be looking at a solid wall of structures.

Cumulative Impact
The cumulative impact of 5 OWTS could pollute the creek. Instead piecemealing these septic systems , there cumulative impact should be studied now to protect the creek and the ocean water quality since the creek outfall is into an Area of Special Biological Significance.

Landscaping
Since this is a designated Monarch overwintering site, the project landscaping should consist of native drought tolerant fire resistant pollinator plants especially ones which are the Monarchs favorites. 432
4 Distance From Creek
The staff report is not consistent in measuring the distance of the Development from the creek. On table 3 it says rear setback is 23 ft.

Other portions of the staff report say the creek setback is 40 ft. (staff report page 4), 50 ft. (staff report page 5). What is the correct answer? Conclusion
This project has to be send back and redesigned if it is not denied and need studies should be done. Thank you for considering these comments.
433
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:14 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: CDP 05-081, 31864 Sea Level Drive
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:16 AM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Adrienne Coryell <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Fred Gaines ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Garo Bedrossian ; Don Schmitz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CDP 05‐081, 31864 Sea Level Drive
Good morning Adrian and Richard;
Due to the staff report being published close of business last Thursday, and available to us on Friday the 2nd to begin responding to the findings for the recommendation of denial, we simply do not have adequate time to prepare and will need to postpone this matter.

Please confirm that the item will be postponed, and that it will be heard on a date certain in January.

Sincerely,
Don
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cell: (310) 617‐0773 | Office: (818) 338‐3636

[email protected] | www.schmitzandassociates.com| www.facebook.com 434
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Elizabeth Lynch >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Rebecca Evans; Adrian Fernandez; Elizabeth Lynch; Dennis Smith; John Mazza; Kraig Hill; Jeffrey D Jennings; Mark Wetton
Subject: Item 5.B December 5, 2022 Hearing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Miss Evans:

Would you please forward this document to all members of the Planning Commission so that they will have it prior to the December 5, 2022 meeting.

Further, I will be signing up to speak at the meeting.

Thank you for your efforts,
Elizabeth C. Lynch
December 4, 2022 E
To: Chair Smith and Members of the
Planning Commission
Submitted by:

Elizabeth C. Lynch, Esq. and Glenn H Lynch
Re: Item 5.B. Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2022 Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 05–081, Variance Nos. 09– 023 and 16–024, and Site Plan Review No. 06–032 – An
application for the construction of a new single family residence and associated development.

Location: 31864 W. Sea Level Dr., within the appealable coastal zoneCommission
435
2 APN 4470–027–020
On November 22, 2022 a Supplemental Commission Agenda
Report was prepared by Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director and approved by Richard Mollica, Planning
DirectorEssentially, the supplemental report recommends adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 22–09 (Attachment A), which recommends denial of Coastal Development Permit CDP No. 05–

08. As interested and impacted property owners we fully agree to the findings.

Further, it should be noted that when the project was before the planning commission on February 22, 2022 that Glenn and Elizabeth Lynch submitted written arguments and spoke at a virtual hearing. We respectfully request all commentary, written and spoken, be made part of the record in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch
Sent from my iPad
436
From:

Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:32 PM
To: Kraig Hill < >; John Mazza < >; Mark Wetton
< >; Dennis Smith < >; Jeffrey D Jennings
>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: December 5,2022 agenda item 5B 31864 Sea Level Drive, Honorable Planning Commissioners,
The previous concerns of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth are in our previous email which is contained in the staff report. These concerns still exist and further studies should be required.

We concur with staff that the applicant can redesign the residence in order to set it back from the creek as required by the MLCP and to so will decrease water usage.

The Staff report states "The applicant response states that the proposed OWTS is not expected to have an adverse effect on the adjacent stream and associated riparian habitat. The response includes letters from the project biologist and OWTS designer as well as various other exhibits. The response concludes that the proposed three-bedroom residence and OWTS are feasible and will not impact the creek." These studies may or may not be correct but this proposed OWTS shouldn't and can not be considered in isolation. There are already 4 existing OWTS closer than 100 feet from the creek. There is the proposed OWTS and 4 more lots yet to be developed whose OWTS can't meet the required 100 feet setback from the creek.

It is hard to conceive that the cumulative impact of all these systems will not have a negative impact on the water quality of the creek and the cumulative impact should be considered not only in considering this project but all future projects on the creek side of Sea Level Drive. If the residences are smaller the impact to water quality will be less.

Respectfully,
Patt Healy for Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth.
437
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Richard Mollica
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: Hearing February 6th - Garo Bedrossian, West Sea Level Got this, I don’t know if its been forwarded to you
From: Barry Woods >
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:25 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Hearing February 6th ‐ Garo Bedrossian, West Sea Level Dear Malibu Planning Department,
RE: Garo Bedrossian Permit Application

I’d like to voice my support for the project to be considered on Monday, February 6th, 2023. I am a neighbor on West Sea Level, a couple of doors down from the proposed development.

I believe the Planning Department has erred in asking that the home be moved closer to the road, as there will be no benefit to the environment while creating a home inconsistent with the neighborhood front yard setbacks.

I find this counter-intuitive, in that it would be far better and safer to have any waste and septic closer to the street, not only for servicing and repair, but away from a creek, that should something drastic transpire from earthquake, flood or fire, the waterway would not be contaminated.

I believe the original plans presented a fair and considerate plan taking into consideration all of the ramifications of building on West Sea Level, and protecting the sensitive environment. Don Schmitz is a well respected, highly qualified planner and has taken great pains to review the plans, speaking with all those involved, and to gain not only their support, but verifying environmental concerns are met.

I wholeheartedly support the Bedrossian plans and ask that the original plans and the relocation of the house towards the creek and the septic nearer the road to be the most considerate and viable alternative.

As Treasurer of MEHOA, I strongly encourage you to support and approve this project. 438
2 Many thanks for the work you have done working with the Woolsey fire victims.

Barry & Diane Woods
West Sea Level Drive
Malibu, CA 90265
439
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Rebecca Evans
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Don Schmitz; Richard Mollica; Adrian Fernandez
Cc: Adrienne Coryell; Schmitz and Associates; Scott Hoeft; Diana Springer Subject: RE: February 6, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Item No. 5.D. CDP No. 05-081 Don,
When an item is continued to a date certain, it is placed under Section 4 – Continued Public Hearings and does not require a new legal notice. This item was last brought to the Planning Commission on December 5, 2022 (also under New Public Hearings). At that time the applicant team requested a continuance and the item was continued to a date uncertain by the Planning Commission. That required publication of a new legal notice and it has been the Planning Department’s practice to place such items under Section 5 – New Public Hearings.

You are welcome to submit correspondence to the Planning Commission ([email protected]) requesting their consideration of re‐ordering this evening’s agenda.

Regards,
Rebecca Evans | Administrative Assistant | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 246
From: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Adrienne Coryell <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Subject: RE: February 6, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Item No. 5.D. CDP No. 05‐081 Good afternoon Richard, Adrian, and Chair Smith;
There has been a mistake on tonight's agenda, in that our application referenced above, has been placed on the Item #5 New Public Hearings, when it should have been placed under Item #4 Continued Public Hearings. This matter was in front of the planning commission on the February agenda of 2022, whereupon the public hearing was opened, commission comments were given, and the matter was continued. Accordingly, we would ask that the matter get moved tonight to Item #4 for Continued Public Hearings.

Thank you for your time regarding this sequencing matter.

Sincerely,
Don
Donald W. Schmitz II / President / A.I.C.P.
440
2 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 441
442
443
444
Item 5D
CDP 05-082
31864 Sea Level Drive
Presentation Before the Malibu Planning Commission
February 6, 2023 1
445
February 2022 Planning Commission Hearing
• Staff Recommendation on Feb. 22,
2022 was for Approval of CDP 05-082
with Findings in the Staff Report
2 446
February 2022 Planning Commission Hearing
• Staff Recommendation on Feb. 22,
2022 was for Approval of CDP 05-082
with Findings in the Staff Report
• Staff Correctly Affirmed that there
were No Impacts to ESHA
3 447
February 2022 Planning Commission Hearing
• Staff Recommendation on Feb. 22,
2022 was for Approval of CDP 05-082
with Findings in the Staff Report
• Staff Correctly Affirmed that there
were No Impacts to ESHA
• Item was Continued to a Date
Uncertain.
4 448
Location and Precedent:
• All Properties on West Sea Level are blanketed by the stream/riparian setback.
• There is existing precedent to approve similarly
situated projects as well as allowing current projects
with similar constraints to move forward
5 449
CDP 05
-162
App. 3/20/06
CDP 05-043
App. 3/20/06
CDP 15-073
Pending
CDP 05-102
Withdrawn
CDP 05-101
Withdrawn
CDP 05-081
Pending
CCC CDP 5-89-325
App. 9/13/89
CCC CDP 5-90-682
App. 2/7/91

PERMITTING

HISTORY
& STATUS
6 450
February 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
7 451
8 452
MicroSepTec OWTS
9 453
Disinfection Stage 1:

UV Disinfection Unit
10 UV Disinfection Unit
Inside MicroSepTec Unit
454
Disinfection Stage 2:

Chlorination/Dechlorination Unit
11 Norweco Bio-Kinetic BK-2000CD
Chlorination/Dechlorination System
455
12 456
82’
108’
95’
103’
SEPTIC

SETBACKS
FROM
STREAM
77’
69’
13 90’
457
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
14 458
Drainage Plan
•Designed by Trisha Coffey – AHSIRT Engineering for an
85th percentile storm event
• System designed to comply with Section 17.4.2 of the
Malibu LCP LIP
15 459
Section 17.4.2 of the LCP LIP:
"For design purposes, with case-by-case considerations, postconstruction Treatment Control BMPs (or suites of BMPs) shall be designed to treat, infiltrate, or filter the amount of stormwater runoff produced by all storms up to and including the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event for volume-based BMPs and/or the 85th percentile, 1-hour storm event (with an appropriate safety factor, i.e. 2 or greater) for flow-based BMPs.

The above numerical design criteria shall apply to Treatment Control BMPs implemented as part of a WQMP"
16 460
17 461
18 462
67’
42’
44’
61’

BUILDING

SETBACKS
FROM
STREAM
19 50’
463
February 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
20 464
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
21 100’
465
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
22 466
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
23 467
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
24 468
LUP Policy 3.1 states:
...Existing, legally established agricultural uses,
confined animal facilities, and fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
for existing, legal structures do not meet the
definition of ESHA.
25 469

SURROUNDING
FUEL

MODIFICATION
26 470
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
27 471
West Sea Level Residence Sizes
28 Address Size (Sq. Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 8,803
31862 Sea Level 3,670
31851 Sea Level 2,906
31858 Sea Level 2,690
31885 Sea Level 2,608
31847 Sea Level 2,215
31875 Sea Level 2,030
31869 Sea Level 1,891
31864 Sea Level
31894 Sea Level 1,495
31863 Sea Level 1,032

MEDIAN SIZE
472
2,215
West Sea Level Residence Heights
29 Address Height (Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 32
31894 Sea Level 28
31858 Sea Level 28
31862 Sea Level 27
31885 Sea Level 26
31875 Sea Level
31864 Sea Level
31847 Sea Level 25
31869 Sea Level 23
31851 Sea Level 19
31863 Sea Level 15
MEDIAN HEIGHT:
473
26 February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
30 Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property owners of the same development configuration and siting enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning and constraints.
474
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
…on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25
percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.
… The development must be sited to avoid destruction of riparian habitat to the maximum extent feasible.
31 475

ZERO MINUS ZERO EQUALS ZERO
0 – 0 = 0
32 476
0 – 0 = 0
33 STREAM AND

GROUNDWATER

IMPACTS
BRUSH

CLEARANCE

DRAINAGE

IMPACTS

SETBACK

MODIFICATIONS
477
34 ZERO IMPACTS TO CREEK

MINUS SETBACK MODIFICATIONS

EQUALS ZERO BENEFIT
478
35 Thank You
479
36 31864 & 31862 Sea Level Drive
• Size:
• Proposed App.: 1,799 sq. ft.
• Neighbor: 3,670 sq. ft.
• Height:
• Proposed App.: 26 ft.
• Neighbor: 27 ft.
• Average Rear Yard Setback:
• Proposed App.: 35 ft.
• Neighbor: 19 ft.
19’
35’
480
37 31864 & 31862 Sea Level Drive
• Septic Setback from Stream: • Proposed App.: 90 ft. • Neighbor.: 95 ft. • Average Bldg. Setback from Stream: • Proposed App.: 58 ft. • Neighbor: 32 ft.
• OWTS: • Proposed App.:

MicroSepTec ES 06
• Neighbor: Not Specified on EH
Plot Plan
32’
58’
481
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
…on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25
percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.
… The development must be sited to avoid destruction of riparian habitat to the maximum extent feasible.
38 482
39 483
40 484
0 – 0 = 0
41 STREAM AND

GROUNDWATER

IMPACTS
BRUSH

CLEARANCE

DRAINAGE

IMPACTS

SETBACK

MODIFICATIONS
485
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
42 486
West Sea Level Residence Heights
43 Address Height (Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 32
31894 Sea Level 28
31858 Sea Level 28
31862 Sea Level 27
31885 Sea Level 26
31875 Sea Level
31864 Sea Level
31847 Sea Level 25
31869 Sea Level 23
31851 Sea Level 19
31863 Sea Level 15
MEDIAN HEIGHT:
487
26 West Sea Level Residence Sizes
44 Address Size (Sq. Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 8,803
31862 Sea Level 3,670
31851 Sea Level 2,906
31858 Sea Level 2,690
31885 Sea Level 2,608
31847 Sea Level 2,215
31875 Sea Level 2,030
31869 Sea Level 1,891
31864 Sea Level
31894 Sea Level 1,495
31863 Sea Level 1,032
MEDIAN SIZE 2,215
MEDIAN SIZE: 2,215 Sq. Ft.
488
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Garo Bedrossian >
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:17 PM
To: Alexander Montano
Cc: Rebecca Evans
Subject: 31864 Sea Level Drive: Item No. 5.D February 6, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting Hello:

I am the applicant for the above address and item for tonight's hearing..I received this from one of my neighbors and wanted to forward it to be addressed for this evening's hearing. Thank you.

Dear Garo:

I have reviewed your proposed New single family Residence at 31864 Sea Level Drive on the city Website and support the project as designed. I believe that the Basement poses no impact on the Creek and that the Septic system designed in front as far from the creek as possible is acceptable.

David Thomas
W Sea level Dr
489
1 Planning Commission
From: Elizabeth Lynch >
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Planning Commission; Liz Lynch
Subject: Item 5D February 6, 2023 planning commission hearing Attachments: Blank 28.pdf
Please send to the appropriate parties. Thank you
Sent from my iPad
490
February 1, 2023
To: Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission
Re: Item 5.D Planning Commission Meeting on 02–06–23
REQUEST: DENY VARIANCES/31864 West Sea Level Drive (CDP 05-081)

INTRODUCTION
There are active applications for development on W. Sea Level Dr., in particular, the two residences located at 31864 and 31866 W. Sea Level Dr. The details of these applications are as noted:

Coastal Development Permit No.05–081, Variance No. 09–023 and 16– 024, and Site Plan Review No.06–032 – an application for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development — located at 31864 West Sea Level Drive.

In addition, multiple variances have been requested regarding the Coastal Development Permit for the adjacent parcel located at 31866 W. Sea Level Dr. (CDP No.05-082, Variance Nos. 09-024 and 16-025 and Site Plan Review No. 06-071). See staff report, ERB Meeting, Item 3.A

DISCUSSION
The property located at 31864 West Sea Level Dr. is the most southerly of five contiguous vacant sub-standard parcels located on the west side of West Sea Level Drive. In addition, the adjacent property owner (31866) is also seeking developmental approval.

Granting variances for 31864 West Sea Level Drive must be granted or denied in the light of the fact that there is an identical request for the same variances on the adjacent property (31866) Thus, the cumulative effect of granting multiple variances will result in a massive negative impact on the area.

Not only does the granting of variances for just two parcels create a massive impact on the ESHA and surrounding area, but it can be assumed that all five properties will require multiple variances. Thus, granting of 491
approximately 15+ variances will create a massive, cumulative, negative impact on a very sensitive area, which includes an ESHA, blue line stream and the Pacific Ocean.

Further, and importantly—The monarch butterfly habitat will be severely impacted by this large development. Letters have been submitted regarding the impact on the monarch butterfly and as such should be considered part of this record.

In addition to the above arguments, we respectfully request the Commissioners to take note of the fact that all the properties, the five contiguous parcels, became restricted in 2003. The applicant bought the restricted parcel in the year 2019. Thus, the applicant is barred from making any claims regarding denial of the variances as a possible “taking”.

Further, the Lynchs who live at W. Sea Level Dr. would like the Commissioners to know that should they grant the applicant the variances he asking for, the applicant’s resulting structure size will diminish the available light and privacy of the residents living at 31 .

In closing, we respectfully request the Commissioners to implement the recommendations (denial) of staff and consider the concepts mentioned this document which will minimize the negative impact.

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch
492
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 10:02 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 2-6-23 Planning Commission item 5D
Attachments: PC sealevel dr 2-6-23 ff.docx
From: >
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: 2‐6‐23 Planning Commission item 5D
Patricia, resending
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: >
To: dennis smith <[email protected]>; john mazza <[email protected]>; K. Hill <[email protected]>; skylar peak <[email protected]>; jeff jennings <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; >
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:12:13 AM PST
Subject: 2-6-23 Planning Commission item 5D
Commissioners, attached is Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth's comments on the above referenced item
493
1 To Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG) by Patt Healy Date 2-6-23
Agenda Item 5D Coastal Development Permit No. 05-081/31864 Sea Level Honorable Commissioners:

The Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth supports staff’s recommendation for denial of this project as designed for the reasons stated by them in the staff report regarding the required residence and septic setback from Encinal Creek, a major blue line stream.

Square Footage According to staff report the total allowable development area is 1737 sq.ft.,(25% of the lot size). Just because the applicant is allowed 25% the lot area for a structure doesn’t mean they should be allowed the maximum allowable footage especially since the residence is within the 100 foot setback area to a major blue line blue stream ESHA and 4 additional residences on substandard lots will be constructed within the 100 foot setback area to this major blue line stream in the future.

To reduce the cumulative impact of this project and the remaining vacant lots within the 100 foot set back area, we recommend the residence be redesigned to be the same size as the residence beside the Creek at the entrance to Sea Level Dr. which according to the website REDFIN is 1093 sq ft. and that all future applicants be limited to 25% of the lot size but no greater than 1093 square feet.

Cumulative Impact Good planning would dictate that this residence not be looked at in isolation but in conjunction with and the 4 other substandard vacant lots.

The cumulative impact of 5 OWTS along with the impact of the already existing residences would most likely pollute the creek. Instead piecemealing these septic systems,, there cumulative impact should be assumed to protect the creek and the ocean water quality since the creek outfall is into an Area of Special Biological Significance.

Landscaping Since this is a designated Monarch overwintering site, the project landscaping should consist of native drought tolerant fire resistant pollinator plants, including milkweed, since milkweed is the only plant Monarchs will lay there eggs on.
494
2 The two Coastal Live Oaks on site should be guaranteed protection.

Therefore, at the very least the Arborist suggested recommendations set forth in the Tree Walkers ,LLC report received by the Planning Department on 3-4-22 should be made mandatory.

Basement Has the level of the groundwater been studied? How high will it be in wet years when the water table is high? The city has to be confident there will be no basement flooding. If unknown, a groundwater study must be done because of the residence proximity to Encinal Creek. One should be sure there will not be a situation like La Paz where groundwater was reached during excavation.

Moreover, this appears to be a spec house and a new resident owner should be assured there will be no basement flooding.

Cultural Resources Because creeks were their fresh water source, the Chumash built their villages beside creeks, Encinal Creek was no exception. A Chumash burial site was found between Sea Level Dr and this creek. Most likely these artifacts would be buried beneath the fill that staff says covers the site. Clearly having a monitor for 3 ft of excavation only is not enough. See https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-05-24-me-138-story.html on regarding excavation of Chumash remains. Therefore, we disagree with the Archeologist assessment there no cultural resources onsite.The applicant should be required to have a Chumash Monitor on site during all grading, excavation and other soil disturbance to be sure artifacts are preserved. In addition, LCP requirements regarding Cultural Recourses need to be adhered to.

Permeable Surfaces What percentage of the lot is permeable ? Does it meet the city requirement for lot permeability?
Ground Floor Rear Deck Is the ground floor deck permeable? Is it fire resistant? If not, it shouldn’t be allowed. How far is the deck set back from the creek? Decks are development and development is not allowed within 100 feet of this creek, a blue line stream. Hence the deck should be eliminated.

Protecting Resident Views Just because residents didn’t file for view protection doesn’t mean they should be denied this protection. Currently residents across the street from these 5 vacant lots have views of this creek ESHA and its trees.

Most residents are unaware they have the ability to protect their views. Staff 495
3 should be cognizant of this fact and require this and future residences on these vacant lots be one story. Otherwise, the residents will be looking at a solid wall of .

Thank you for considering these comments.
496
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Tom Keane >
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Alexander Montano; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Planning matter this evening
Dear Malibu Planning Department,
RE: Garo Bedrossian Permit Application
I’d like to voice my support for the project to be considered on Monday, February 6th, 2023. I am a neighbor on East Sea Level, living within the same Homeowner tract as the proposed development.

While not on the same street, as president of the MEHOA homeowner organization, I do closely monitor such projects. I have been engaged on this one with Garo since 2019. I believe the Planning Department should approve this project as in my view it is completely compliant.

Septic needs should ameliorate any tight creekside setbacks.

I also believe our neighborhood feels strongly that the remaining open lots on West Sea Level should be developed. We are fortunate as homeowners to have folks like Garo looking to build compliant homes within quite challenging constraints.
497
2 Finally, as you likely know, MEHOA has been engaged for nearly two decades in a dispute/litigation with the MRCA, and as we've recently settled the open issues, one key element is to do a fire department requested entry widening to the street as accessed via Broad Beach Road. This fully addresses past concerns raised by LA County fire regarding challenging access and should clear the path for Garo and other land owning folks hoping to build homes in our Malibu community. I strongly encourage approval. As one currently building in the tract, the process is beyond excruciating. My CDP was issued in 2014, and my quite small, very simple home is still not completed. Please find a better path for Garo and his family.

Thank you for your time considering my input.

Sincerely,
Thomas Keane President Malibu Encinal Home Owners Association (MEHOA)

498
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Fred Gaines ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Adrienne Coryell <[email protected]>;
Subject: CDP 05‐082, 31864 Sea Level: Response to February 6 Plnn. Comm. Issues Good Morning Adrian,
I hope you are having a great start to your Wednesday morning. Attached is our response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission on February 6th. Please let us know if you have any questions about this response or if you need anything else to prepare for the April 3rd hearing. Thank you again and I hope you have a great Wednesday ahead.

Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
499
1 March 22, 2023
City of Malibu Planning Department
Attn: Adrian Fernandez,
Assistant Planning Director
23815 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 05-081, 31864 Sea Level Drive: Response to Concerns Raised by Planning Commissioners
Dear Mr. Fernandez,
We are writing in response to concerns raised by Planning Commissioners during the February 6, 2023, Malibu Planning Commission Hearing for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 05-081 at 31864 Sea Level Drive. We are also writing to respond to comments made by members of the public in opposition to this application.

Specific items of concern were presented in the staff report and with two letters of opposition written by Elizabeth & Glenn Lynch and Patt Healy, Malibu Slow Growth Coalition. Below are the applicant’s responses to the issues raised in the staff report and two letters of opposition:

I. Project as Designed Exceeds State Septic Standards
Planning Commission Vice Chair John Mazza questioned the standards used to design the OnSite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). The consulting wastewater engineer, John Yaroslaski of ENSITU Engineering states in his June 26, 2022 letter that “the project is designed to treat the wastewater from the residence to State Water Resources Control Board “California Ocean Plan” standards and Santa Monica Bay TMDL standards.” These standards are the minimum standards set forth to ensure that an OWTS does not cause any adverse environmental impacts.

Mr. Yaroslaski then states in the same June 26, 2022 letter that “the system is also designed with redundant disinfection (two disinfection units in series).” The first disinfection unit is a UV Disinfection Unit in the MicroSepTec Unit. The second disinfection unit is a Norweco BioKinetic BK-2000CD Chlorination/Dechlorination System. These two disinfection units were put in place to ensure that the OWTS does not impact adjacent water bodies and groundwater.

Through the design of the OWTS to California Ocean Plan and Santa Monica Bay TMDL Standards, the proposed OWTS meets the minimum standards set forth to ensure the OWTS does not have an adverse environmental impact. The voluntary addition of two additional disinfection units further reduces the risk of such environmental impact and therefore exceeds the California Ocean Plan and Santa Monica Bay TMDL standards.
500
2 II. Groundwater Observations from Date of Groundwater Test are Similar to Those of Winter 2022-2023
Vice Chair Mazza also raised concerns about historically high groundwater elevation reported in past groundwater reports. A Groundwater Test was conducted for the subject property on April 6, 2006 by Richard Gladson of Geosystems, Inc. Mr. Gladson states that the borings were dug in 2005 after an unusually high rainfall in the first two months of the year. For the 2004-2005 rainfall season, the closest weather station in Los Angeles reported rainfall at 246% above normal rainfall projections.

Figure 1: Seasonal Rainfall and Percent of Normal for Key California Cities, 2004-2005 As of March 20, 2023, the rainfall totals for Winter 2022-2023 are similar to those of Winter 2004-2005. At the closest weather station with a measurement, Camarillo is reporting rainfall at 185% above normal rainfall levels. Other nearby weather stations in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties are reporting rainfall levels between 165% and 193% above normal levels. 501
3 Figure 2: Seasonal Rainfall and Percent of Normal for Key California Cities, July 1, 2022 to March 20, 2023
Based on these rainfall levels, the groundwater elevations are as of now similar to the levels reported when the groundwater test was completed in 2006 and the testing documented a groundwater level that is “worst case.”
III. Vast Majority of Property Is Located Within the 100-Foot Stream ESHA Buffer and Surrounding Fuel Modification Reduces the Impact.

It was stated by staff during the February 6, 2023 Planning Commission hearing that the placement of the proposed single-family residence in the 100-foot Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer constitutes an environmental impact.

The entire property encroaches into the required 100-foot ESHA Buffer pursuant to section

4.6.1(A) of the Malibu LCP LIP1
. As mapped by Project Biologist Steven Nelson and buffered, 95% of the property is located within the Stream ESHA Buffer. The remaining 5% at over 300 square feet is located within the front yard setback and is not enough room to place a home.

Portions of the OWTS are located within the area outside the Stream ESHA Buffer, but the area is not large enough to accommodate an entire dispersal field. A variance for development within 1 Section 4.6.1(A) of the Malibu LCP LIP states “New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation.” 502
4 the Stream ESHA buffer would be needed to successfully fulfill development on the subject property.

The subject property has been historically and legally cleared of native vegetation due to Fire Department required fuel modification. This fuel modification comes from legally existing structures within 200 feet of the subject property. Section 3.1 of the Malibu LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) states “... fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA.” Due to this past and ongoing clearance, the areas outside the stream and riparian canopy are not considered ESHA and are not afforded the same level of protection as the stream, which is an ESHA.

As can be seen in the below aerial map of the property, all native brush and plants have been cleared on and around the property for code required brush clearance for ‘other’ surrounding homes. The applicant does not propose any new development other than the home itself and the wastewater system and both the project biologist and the project wastewater engineer have made findings that the proposed development will NOT have any impact whatsoever upon ESHA or the environment, and therefore does NOT constitute an environmental impact. 503
5 Figure 3: Yellow Area represents Area of Existing Brush Clearance for Surrounding Homes. The stream itself is the only sensitive resource on site.

IV. Staff’s Most Recent Findings are Contradicted by Prior City Findings in Support of Project Approval and yet there has Been no New Evidence in the Record to Warrant the Revised Recommendation of Denial
The findings contained in the December 5, 2022 and February 6, 2023, staff reports are contradicted by staff’s findings in its February 22, 2022, Staff Report. The February 2022 staff report found that the proposed Single-Family Residence was the least environmentally damaging alternative. In CDP Finding #3, the report stated that “The proposed project maximizes the setback from the creek, minimizes the impacts to ESHA to the extent feasible, and does not result in any significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative.” Alternatives analyzed in February included a smaller project, no basement and residence siting farther from the creek; these alternatives were previously considered and rejected in the February report only to be reconsidered in the December staff report with a fresh “Take” on impact assessment, which as noted above, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nothing in the record justifies or explains the staff’s change in recommendation from approval to denial.

V. Project does not Maximize Limits Imposed by Section 4.7 of the Malibu LCP LIP Commissioner Kraig Hill stated that the project as proposed pushed Section 4.7 of the LCP LIP to the limits. Section 4.7 of the LCP LIP is in place to provide alternatives for applicants whose properties contain ESHA encroachments over the majority of a property. Two of the subsections within Section 4.7 of the LCP LIP provide further guidance for the subject property. 504
6 Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP states that “the allowable development area (as defined in Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP) on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.” The subject property is 6,950 square feet and has a maximum allowable development area of 1,738 square feet. The proposed SFR has a development area comprising of 1,719 square feet.

Section 4.7.6 of the LCP LIP provides supplemental findings for a CDP on a property that has ESHA encroachments over the majority of a property. These findings include:

A. Application of the ESHA overlay Chapter would not allow construction of a residence on an undeveloped parcel.

B. The project is consistent with all provisions of the certified LCP with the exception of the ESHA overlay and it complies with the provisions of Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

The draft resolution presented at the February 22, 2022 Planning Commission hearing contained the findings set forth in Section 4.7.6 of the LCP LIP. Staff acknowledged in the findings that “Neither the residence, fuel modification nor septic system’s dispersal can be sited outside of the ESHA buffer,” and that ESHA buffer encroachment cannot be avoided.

Any proposed single-family residence will be located within the ESHA Buffer regardless of proximity to a setback from the property line or distance from the stream or Sea Level Drive. If the applicant wanted to push Section 4.7 to the limits, he would have maxed out the development area at 1.738 square feet. Instead, he chose to develop on a 1,719 square foot development area, providing a difference of 19 square feet.

VI.Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP Already Presents a Limit on Development Area Patt Healy states in her February 6, 2023 letter for the Planning Commission hearing on the same day that “just because the applicant is allowed 25% the lot area for a structure doesn’t mean they should be allowed the maximum allowable footage...” Ms. Healy also requested that “all future applicants be limited to 25% of the lot size but no greater than 1,093 square feet” based on the size of the residence permitted at 31894 Sea Level Drive.

Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP states that “the allowable development area (as defined in Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP) on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.” Other sections that provide caps on development area are Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.40.040(A)13 and LCP LIP Section 3.6.K which provide guidance on Total Development Square Footage (TDSF).

The subject property is not located in a zoning overlay district other than the ESHA overlay.

Imposing a cap on the development area would constitute a new development standard and would require a Local Coastal Program Amendment since it is essentially proposing a zoning overlay district.
505
7 VII. Requiring the Applicant to Remove bedrooms and/or basement area would not serve to Minimize Impacts but Would Serve to Prejudice the Development Application
The December 5, 2022, Malibu Planning Commission Staff Report states “The elimination of bedrooms would result in the reduction of the dispersal area.” The rationale being that reducing the size of the project’s micro dosing leach field would limit environmental impacts. The applicant reiterates his comments above, noting that it is not possible for the applicant to minimize or avoid impacts which the experts have opined on and found do NOT exist. The project as designed (3 Bedrooms) will not have any impact upon ESHA or the environment; therefore, further conditioning the project and limiting development (that already complies with all other development standards and LIP section 4.7), would not further any legitimate government interest and would substantially prejudice the applicant.

VIII. There are NO Impacts to the Stream ESHA, Private Views and Cultural Resources
Patt Healy of the Malibu Slow Growth Coalition submitted letters for both the February 22, 2022, December 5, 2022, February 6, 2023 Planning Commission hearings raising concern about the size and bulk of the proposed residence, proximity to a blue line stream, impacts to private views, and impacts to cultural resources. Similar concerns were raised by Glenn & Elizabeth Lynch in their comment letters for the same hearings. Some of these concerns were addressed in the applicant’s response on July 7, 2022.

Andrew Forde analyzed the impacts to the Blue Line Stream in his letter as part of the July 7, 2022, response and stated that “... moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable positive biological benefits to the drainage area.” This sentence was identified by staff as a presentation of an alternative. However, Mr. Forde concluded that “As currently designed the proposed house will not have any significant impacts to the drainage.” Primary Views
Along West Sea Level Drive, there is only one Primary View Determination near the subject property. It is PVD 12-109 at 31833 Sea Level Drive with determination on December 6, 2012.

Photographs in the PVD demonstrate that there are no primaryview impacts to any nearby residences. At 26 feet, 2 inches, the proposed single-family residence is also of comparable height to the neighbors to the south, which are 26.46 feet and 28.55 feet in height respectively2 .

Cultural Resources
2 Data source: LARIAC Buildings 2014 GIS Feature Class. Updated April 28, 2021 by Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS. Data was cumulated through a process known as “Deep Learning.” 506
8 A Phase II Archaeological Report was required for the processing of this application and was submitted by Clay Singer of C.A. Singer and Associates, Inc. Mr. Singer concluded his report by stating “regardless of how much excavation work is carried out in the future, the possibility of impacting significant archaeological resources is near zero.” As part of the draft resolution for the February 22, 2022, hearing, three cultural resource conditions were presented, including an archaeologist monitoring all excavations of three feet or deeper and immediate ceasing of work if cultural resources are discovered during construction. The conditions were written pursuant to Sections 11.3(G)3
and 11.5 of the Malibu LCP LIP4. We are amenable to having a modified condition for archeological sterile ground monitoring.

IX. Conclusion
By Malibu standards or any other standards, the proposed residence is modest. The Main living area of the residence is limited to 1,000 sq. Ft. And includes one guest room. The Bedroom wing upstairs contains only 2 additional bedrooms and is limited to 796 sq. Ft. The garage has been limited to a 2-car garage; the minimum required by the code. Locating additional sq. Ft. Below grade, thereby limiting the footprint and massing of the residence is an effective way to avoid project impacts.

A 3-bedroom house is extremely reasonable. For staff to suggest that the elimination of one of the bedrooms and the entire basement area is needed to avoid impacts to ESHA is neither supported by facts nor by expert opinion on the record. Such a recommendation would deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other property near the property with the same zoning classification. It should be noted that the “Vicinity” is not restricted to the homes along the Western side of Sea Level Drive, but rather, those on both sides of the street and within the neighborhood generally. The proposed residence complies with the maximum development area permitted by code for developments within an ESHA or ESHA buffer per LIP section 4.7 and the residence will not have any impact upon ESHA or the environmental and is otherwise consistent with all other provisions of the LCP.

Accordingly, we ask that the Commission approve the applicant’s project as currently proposed and grant the Variances for Setbacks from ESHA.

Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
3 Section 11.3(G)4.b states “Project applicant agrees to provide monitoring of all excavation or trenching by a qualified Chumash cultural resource monitor, chosen in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City Native American Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, and the most likely descendent.”
4 Section 11.5 states “Any person who discovers important cultural resources during the course of construction for a project shall notify the Planning Manager of the discovery. Once important cultural resources are discovered, no further excavation shall be permitted without approval of the Planning Manager” 507
9 Donald W. Schmitz, II, AICP
President
508
1 Planning Commission
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 5:03 PM
To: Planning Commission; 'Andrew'
Cc: Don Schmitz; Chris Deleau; Adrienne Coryell
Subject: RE: Item 4A, 4/17/2023: 31864 Sea Level Drive
Attachments: Sea Level Drive Letter, April, 2023.doc
Good aŌernoon Chair Smith & Planning Commissioners,
Forwarding over one more piece of correspondence for item 4A tonight. This Ɵme it is a leƩer from project biologist Andrew Forde, who is also on this thread.

Please let us know if you have any quesƟons. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon regarding this maƩer.

Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message From: Benjamin Suber
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 1:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Adrienne Coryell <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4A, 4/17/2023: 31864 Sea Level Drive
Good aŌernoon Chair Smith & Planning Commissioners,
I hope you all had a great weekend. Before you tonight is Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 05‐081 for 31864 Sea Level Drive. This is Item 4A on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda.

Staff is recommending denial of this CDP ApplicaƟon. Should you see fit to vote against staff’s recommendaƟon and approve the CDP ApplicaƟon, aƩached is the draŌ resoluƟon that was presented on February 22, 2022. AddiƟonal informaƟon can be found in the following staff report:
hƩps://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/5431?fileID=27901 Please let us know if you have any quesƟons. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon regarding this maƩer.

Re: 31864 Sea Level Drive, City of Malibu, California
Steve Nelson prepared a Biological Assessment, dated July 2004. The report concluded that there was no ESHA on the property, that threatened and endangered species do not occur on the property and that none are not expected to occur. It also concludes that it is poor habitat for wildlife. The report prepared by Forde concluded same.

The Nelson report also concluded the presence of native trees including California sycamore and California live oak and shrubs including laurel sumac and toyon within and along the drainage, but they were heavily inundated by non-native species to the extent where they had compromised form and function of the native habitat. The Forde report concludes the same; however, California sycamore, which is listed as a facultative wetland species (= riparian) on the National Wetlands Plant list, does not occur on the subject property. The other species are upland species.

There is no riparian vegetation within the boundary of the subject property, and none will be removed as part of the proposed project. The only vegetation that shall be removed is non-native vegetation, which will reduce competition with native species.

Sincerely,
Andrew Forde
10664 PRESILLA ROAD • CAMARILLO, CA • 93012
PHONE: 805 302-7165
WWW.FORDEBIO.COM • E-MAIL: [email protected]

B IOLOGICAL C ONSULTANTS
510
1 Planning Commission
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 1:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Don Schmitz; Chris Deleau; Adrienne Coryell
Subject: Item 4A, 4/17/2023: 31864 Sea Level Drive
Attachments: 2022.02.22 31864 Sea Level Draft Resolution.pdf Good aŌernoon Chair Smith & Planning Commissioners,
I hope you all had a great weekend. Before you tonight is Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 05‐081 for 31864 Sea Level Drive. This is Item 4A on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda.

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 22-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 05-081 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,799 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE PLUS A 398 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND 995 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 240 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR DECK, 349 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR DECK, 125 SQUARE FOOT

SECOND FLOOR BALCONY, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AND ONSITE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 09-023

FOR A PITCHED ROOF, IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 31864 SEA LEVEL DRIVE (NAJARIAN

AND BEDROSSIAN)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On May 12, 2020, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On August 3, 2020, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed the project and made recommendations to the Planning Commission.

D. On January 18, 2022, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit after story poles representing the location, height and bulk of the proposed residential building were installed.

E. On January 19, 2022, staff deemed the application complete for processing.

G. On February 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

512
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 2 of 21 ends

______________________
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment and analyzed the proposal as described above. The Planning Commission has found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the substantial evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on February 22, 2022, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 05-081 for the construction of a new 1,799 square foot, two-story single-family residence plus a 398 square foot attached garage and 995 square foot basement, 240 square foot ground-floor deck, 349 square foot second floor deck, 125 square foot second floor balcony, permeable driveway and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including VAR No. 09-023 for construction in a stream Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer, VAR No. 16-024 for the septic system’s dispersal field to extend into the required 100-foot setback from the creek, and SPR No. 06-032 for height over 18 feet but not to exceed 26 feet, 2 inches for a pitched roof, in the Single Family, Medium Density (SFM) zoning district located at 31864 Sea Level Drive.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

Page 3 of 21 ends

______________________

4. The ERB reviewed the proposed project and provided a list of four recommendations.

B. Variance No. 09-023 for New Development within ESHA Buffer (LIP Section 13.26.5) VAR No. 09-023 is a request to allow new development to encroach into a stream ESHA buffer.

1. There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject parcel, such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, including: the small size parcel and the location of onsite stream ESHA. Based on the size of the parcel as depicted on the site plan, there is no feasible configuration or siting that would place the proposed residence outside the stream ESHA buffer. The properties in the vicinity are primarily developed under the identical zoning classification with similar development limitations related proximity to ESHA. As such, there is no way to site the proposed residence to avoid encroachment into the buffer. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property owners of the same development configuration and siting enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning and constraints.

2. With the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval, the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and SFM zone district in which the property is located. The project is designed to minimize grading and landform alteration by utilizing the flattest area of the property. The project complies with the 1,738 square foot development area required for this variance to minimize impacts to ESHA. Furthermore, the project has been reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical staff and City Public Works Department for conformance with the LCP and determined not to be detrimental to the public interest safety, health or welfare, nor detrimental or injurious to the property.

3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners in that single-family residences have been developed on properties in the immediate vicinity with reduced setbacks from ESHA similar to the requested variance. In addition, the proposed single-family residence is consistent with the uses permitted in the applicable zoning designation. The neighboring properties to the south and north, which are developed with singlefamily residences, are also adjacent to ESHA. Therefore, granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owners.

Page 4 of 21 ends

______________________
development area. The project will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of the zoning provisions nor contrary to or in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP, pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.4(A).

5. The project consists of the construction of a new two-story residence and an attached two-car garage and basement. The granting of the variance is for new development to extend into a stream ESHA buffer. Evidence in the record demonstrates that there is no environmentally superior siting location and the total development area for the proposed project is 1,719 square feet; less than 1,738 square feet, which is the maximum allowable pursuant to LIP Section 4.7.

6. The subject parcel is zoned SFM which allows for residential development. The proposed project includes the construction of a two-story single-family residence which is a permitted use in the subject zone. Approval of the variance would permit the proposed encroachment into the stream ESHA buffer. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the SFM Zone.

7. The project will consist of the construction of a single-family residence on the subject parcel. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed residence because with the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval the stream ESHA shall be protected.

Specifically, the subject parcel is physically suitable for the construction of a single-family residence, decks and OWTS with the incorporation of the proposed variance.

8. The variance complies with all requirements of State and local laws.

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject parcel has exceptional physical constraints that limit the location of development such a stream near the parcel’s rear lot line and small parcel size. The proposed dispersal system is located between the proposed residence and Sea Level Drive as far from the creek as feasible. However, there is no way to site the dispersal area to avoid encroachment into the stream ESHA buffer. Therefore, the strict application of the code would deprive the property owners of the ability to develop the property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

4. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the LCP.
515
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 5 of 21 ends

______________________

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

6. The variance request does not authorize a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the subject parcel.

7. The proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical staff and City Public Works Department as being physically suitable for the proposed variance.

8. The variance complies with all requirements of State and local laws.

D. Site Plan Review No. 06-032 for Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27)
SPR No. 06-032 is requested for the construction of a new single-family residence over 18 feet for a maximum of 26 feet, 2 inches in height with a pitched roof.

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project is consistent with policies and provisions of the LCP.

2. Based on the surrounding topography and existing development, the proposed project will blend with the surrounding built environment and will not have an adverse effect on neighborhood character.

4. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and LCP.

6. The proposed residence is not expected to obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing areas of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section

17.40.040(A)(17).

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

Page 6 of 21 ends

______________________
F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project, as conditioned, will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

3. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 05-081, VAR Nos. 09-023 and 16-024, and SPR No. 06-032, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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

Page 7 of 21 ends

______________________
e. Discretionary Requests:
i. Variance (VAR) No. 09-023 for construction within a stream ESHA buffer; ii. VAR No. 16-024 for the septic system’s dispersal field to extend into the required 100-foot setback from the creek; and
iii. Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 06-032 to allow the construction of a singlefamily residence with a maximum height of 26 feet, 2 inches for a pitched roof.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped December 1, 2021 for architectural and landscaping plans and April 24, 2020 for civil plans.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owners sign, notarize and return the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

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

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

Page 8 of 21 ends

______________________

11. The property owners must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

12. A qualified archaeologist must be present at the site to monitor all site excavation down to three feet from existing grade. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the property owners or applicant must provide evidence that an archaeologist has been contracted to perform the required monitoring. After the monitoring is concluded, the qualified archaeologist is required to provide a summary in writing describing the monitoring findings.

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 1 7.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

14. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Lighting

Page 9 of 21 ends

______________________

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

17. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.

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

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

21. Three violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site.

Fencing and Walls

22. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

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

24. Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within ESHA, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration. Fencing or walls that do not permit the free passage of wildlife shall be prohibited in any wildlife corridor.

25. Development adjacent to, but not within ESHA, may include fencing, if necessary for security, that is limited to the area around the clustered development area.

Site Specific Conditions

27. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the applicant/property owners shall provide a pre-construction assessment of the existing condition of West Sea Level Drive to the subject parcel. A copy of this assessment shall be kept on file with the City. The applicant/property owners shall be responsible for repairs of any damage to the road that may result during the construction phase of the proposed project. Any obvious damage to the road that becomes apparent during the construction phase (including, but not limited to, potholes, cracks and ripples) shall be immediately repaired by the applicant/property owners. Prior to a 520
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 10 of 21 ends

______________________
Planning Department final inspection, the applicant/property owners shall submit a postconstruction assessment of the road to demonstrate compliance with this condition. A photo survey shall be utilized to complete this assessment.

Building Plan Check
Construction / Framing

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

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

30. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

31. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

32. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

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

34. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owners are required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation. 521
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 11 of 21 ends

______________________
Biology / Landscaping

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

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

37. 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 owners’ signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 9.22.

38. No portion of the project development shall be placed within the protected zone of a protected native tree.

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

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

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

42. Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the southern limits of grading.

Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

43. Construction fencing shall be installed at the rear property boundary and around the protected zone (5 feet from the dripline or 15 feet from the trunk) of any oak tree prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas – particularly the stream north of the property. 522
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 12 of 21 ends

______________________

44. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the landscape and fuel modification plan. Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

45. Native species of the Santa Monica Mountains, characteristic of the local habitat, shall be used on graded slopes or where slope plantings are required for slope stabilization, erosion control, and watershed protection. Plants should be selected to have a variety of rooting depths. A spacing of 15 feet between large woody (>10-foot canopy) shrubs is recommended by the LACFD. Lawns are prohibited on slopes > 5 percent.

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

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

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

49. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

50. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

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

52. Other than the approved 710 square feet of turf, no non-native plants are permitted in the rear yard and all plants shall be suitable for adjacent monarch butterfly habitat. 523
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 13 of 21 ends

______________________
Fuel Modification

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

Public Works

54. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, post-construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

55. 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.

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

56. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,000 cubic yards, cut and fill.

57. The total grading yardage verification certificate shall be copied onto the coversheet of the Grading Plan. No alternative formats or substitutes will be accepted.

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

59. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
524
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 14 of 21 ends

______________________
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated; e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan as required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inches in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

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

61. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section 17.3.2.B.2.
525
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 15 of 21 ends

______________________

62. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section

17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

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

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

64. The Building Official may approve grading during the rainy season to remediate hazardous geologic conditions that endanger public health and safety.

65. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3. A note shall be placed on the on the project that addresses this condition.

66. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion of final grading.

67. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs);
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofitrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality 526
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 16 of 21 ends

______________________
measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior 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 recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Geology

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

69. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical staff shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Feature

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

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

3.5.3(A).

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

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

74. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
527
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 17 of 21 ends

______________________

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

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

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System

77. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s OWTS regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS.

78. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

79. A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

80. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42 inches tall.

81. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing fixture equivalents, and/or the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design;
528
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 18 of 21 ends

______________________
b. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.

State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; c. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day.

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

82. All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. The floor plans must show all drainage fixtures, including in the kitchen and laundry areas. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

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

84. Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
529
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 19 of 21 ends

______________________

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

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

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

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

89. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area if applicable.

90. In accordance with MMC Chapter 15.44, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit.

Water Quality / Water Service

91. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve Letter from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.

Prior to Occupancy

92. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owners / applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

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

94. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department.

Page 20 of 21 ends

______________________

95. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

96. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

97. The property owners are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owners shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning department staff prior to final planning approval.

98. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 15-21.

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

Fixed Conditions

99. This coastal development permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.
100. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted thereunder.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February 2022. _______________________________________
KRAIG HILL, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
531
Resolution No. 22-09

Page 21 of 21 ends

______________________
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 22-09 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 22nd day of February 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
532
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Permit Application
From: Barry Woods
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Permit Application
Dear Malibu Planning Department,
RE: Garo Bedrossian Permit Application
I’d like to voice my support for the project to be considered on Monday, April 17th, 2023. I am a neighbor on West Sea Level, a couple of doors down from the proposed development.

I believe the plans present a fair and considerate plan taking into consideration all of the ramifications of building on West Sea Level, and protecting the sensitive environment. Don Schmitz is a well respected, highly qualified planner and has taken great pains to review the plans, speaking with all those involved, and to gain not only their support, but verifying environmental concerns are met.

I wholeheartedly support the Bedrossian plans and ask that the plans and the relocation of the house towards the creek and the septic nearer the road to be the most considerate and viable alternative.

As Treasurer of MEHOA, I strongly encourage you to support and approve this project.

Many thanks for the work you have done working with the Woolsey fire victims. 533
2 534
Item 4A
CDP 05‐081
31864 Sea Level Drive
Presentation Before the Malibu Planning Commission
April 17, 2023 1
535
February 2022 Planning Commission Hearing
• Staff Recommendation on Feb. 22,
2022 was for Approval of CDP 05‐082
with Findings in the Staff Report
• Staff Correctly Affirmed that there
were No Impacts to ESHA
2 WHAT CHANGED??
536
Location and Precedent:
• All Properties on West Sea Level are blanketed by the stream/riparian setback.
• There is ample existing precedent to approve similarly situated projects as well as allowing current projectswith similar constraints to move forward 3 537
CDP 05‐162
App. 3/20/06
CDP 05‐043
App. 3/20/06
CDP 15‐073
Pending
CDP 05‐082
Pending
CCC CDP 5‐89‐325
App. 9/13/89
CCC CDP 5‐90‐682
App. 2/7/91

PERMITTINGHISTORY& STATUS
4 538
67’
42’
44’
61’

BUILDINGSETBACKSFROMSTREAM
5 50’
539
82’
108’95’
103’

SEPTICSETBACKSFROMSTREAM
77’
69’
6 90’
540
West Sea Level Residence Sizes
7 Address Size (Sq. Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 8,803
31862 Sea Level 3,670
31851 Sea Level 2,906
31858 Sea Level 2,690
31885 Sea Level 2,608
31847 Sea Level 2,215
31875 Sea Level 2,030
31869 Sea Level 1,891
31864 Sea Level31894 Sea Level 1,49531863 Sea Level 1,032MEDIAN SIZE 2,215 541
West Sea Level Residence Heights
8 Address Height (Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 32
31894 Sea Level 28
31858 Sea Level 28
31862 Sea Level 27
31885 Sea Level 26
31875 Sea Level31864 Sea Level31847 Sea Level 2531869 Sea Level 2331851 Sea Level 1931863 Sea Level 15MEDIAN HEIGHT: 26 542
2006 Geotechnical Report Addresses Groundwater
9 543
2005‐2006 Rainfall 246% Above Normal
Projections
10 544
2022‐23 Rainfall Similar to 2005‐06 Rainfall
11 545
12 546
Disinfection Stage 1:

UV Disinfection Unit
13 UV Disinfection Unit
Inside MicroSepTec Unit
Disinfection Stage 2: Chlorination/
Dechlorination Unit
Norweco Bio‐Kinetic BK‐2000CDChlorination/Dechlorination System 547
14 NO ADVERSE IMPACTS
548
Drainage Plan
•Designed by Trisha Coffey – AHSIRT Engineering for an
85th percentile storm event
• System designed to comply with Section 17.4.2 of the
Malibu LCP LIP
15 549
16 550
April 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
17 551
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
18 WHICH STATEMENT IS CORRECT?
552
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
19 NO DIRECT IMPACTS
553
April 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
20 554
21 In my professional opinion moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable
positive biological benefits to the drainage area. There would be no changes to fuel modification, run off, noise
or light.
555
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
22 100’
556
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
23 557
Malibu Village Tesla Supercharger
24 558
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
25 Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property owners of the same development configuration and siting enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning and constraints.
559
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
26 560
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
…on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25
percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.
27 25% OF PARCEL SIZE = 1,738 SQ. FT.

DEVELOPMENT AREA = 1,719 SQ. FT.
561
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
… The development must be sited to avoid destruction of riparian habitat to the maximum extent feasible.
28 NO REMOVAL, IMPACT OR DESTRUCTON OF

RIPARIAN HABITAT REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OF
SINGLE‐FAMILY RESIDENCE
562
February 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report
29 563

SURROUNDING

FUELMODIFICATION
30 NO NEW FUEL MODIFICATION IMPACT

FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
564
LUP Policy 3.1 states:
...Existing, legally established agricultural uses,
confined animal facilities, and fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
for existing, legal structures do not meet the
definition of ESHA.
31 565
ZERO MINUS ZERO EQUALS ZERO
32 566
0 –0 = 0
33 STREAM AND

GROUNDWATER

IMPACTS
BRUSH

CLEARANCE

DRAINAGE

IMPACTS

SETBACK

MODIFICATIONS
567
34 ZERO IMPACTS TO CREEK

MINUS SETBACK MODIFICATIONS

EQUALS ZERO BENEFIT

INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY
568
35 Thank You
569
36 REBUTTAL
570
67’
42’
44’
61’

BUILDINGSETBACKSFROMSTREAM
37 50’
571
82’
108’95’
103’

SEPTICSETBACKSFROMSTREAM
77’
69’
38 90’
572
West Sea Level Residence Heights
39 Address Height (Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 32
31894 Sea Level 28
31858 Sea Level 28
31862 Sea Level 27
31885 Sea Level 26
31875 Sea Level31864 Sea Level31847 Sea Level 2531869 Sea Level 2331851 Sea Level 1931863 Sea Level 15MEDIAN HEIGHT: 26 573
West Sea Level Residence Sizes
40 Address Size (Sq. Ft.)
31842 Sea Level 8,803
31862 Sea Level 3,670
31851 Sea Level 2,906
31858 Sea Level 2,690
31885 Sea Level 2,608
31847 Sea Level 2,215
31875 Sea Level 2,030
31869 Sea Level 1,891
31864 Sea Level31894 Sea Level 1,49531863 Sea Level 1,032MEDIAN SIZE 2,215 MEDIAN SIZE: 2,215 Sq. Ft.
574
41 575
42 In my professional opinion moving the house 5 or even 10 ft. closer to the street would have no quantifiable
positive biological benefits to the drainage area. There would be no changes to fuel modification, run off, noise
or light.
576
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
…on parcels where all feasible building sites are ESHA or ESHA buffer shall be 10,000 square feet or 25
percent of the parcel size, whichever is less.
43 25% OF PARCEL SIZE = 1,738 SQ. FT.

DEVELOPMENT AREA = 1,719 SQ. FT.
577
Section 4.7.1 of the LCP LIP:
… The development must be sited to avoid destruction of riparian habitat to the maximum extent feasible.
44 NO REMOVAL, IMPACT OR DESTRUCTON OF

RIPARIAN HABITAT REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OF
SINGLE‐FAMILY RESIDENCE
578
July 2020 Environmental Review Board Findings
45 579
July 2020 Environmental Review Board Findings
46 CITY BIOLOGIST APPROVED FUEL

MODIFICATION, BUILDING SITE LOCATION,

LANDSCAPE, DRAINAGE, AND SEPTIC SYSTEM
580
1 Planning Commission
Subject: 31864 Sea Level Dr
Attachments: To Malibu Planning Commission 31864 WSL.docx From: David & Cathy
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:56 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: 'Garo Bedrossian'
Subject: 31864 Sea Level Dr
581
To Malibu Planning Commission:

I have reviewed the proposed new single family residence plans at 31864 Sea Level Drive on the city Website and support the project as designed. I believe that the basement is a creative way to add some square footage to the project and would have no impact on the creek. The OWTS with annual city monitoring is designed in front as far from the creek as possible. I recommend approval of this project. Thank you.

David Thomas
582
1 Aaron Gribben
Subject: FW: Item 4 A./4/17/23
Attachments: Final doc 4112312.pdf
From: Elizabeth Lynch
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 12:34 PM
To: Dennis Smith <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]>; John Mazza <[email protected]>; Skylar Peak Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Item 4 A./4/17/23
Dear Planning Commissioners:

Thank you for considering the enclosed document.

Should you have any questions? Please email me.

Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch
Sent from my iPad
583

To: Chair Smith and Members of the Planning
Commission ,Patricia Salazar and Kelsey Pettijohn, Adrian Fernandez, Rebecca Evans
Submitted by: Elizabeth C. Lynch and Glenn H Lynch
Re: Item 4.A.. Planning Commission meeting 4/17/23
Subject: CDP No. 05-081, Variance Nos. 09-023 and
06-024, and Site Plan Review No. 06-032 - an application for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development
Request: The Planning Commissioners DENY
variances for: Coastal Development Permit Number 05–
081 including three variances which would allow: building in an ESHA, allowing the septic system dispersal field to extend into the required 100 foot setback from the creek as well as a site plan review regarding the height over 18 ft.

Request: The Planning Commissioners vote for
Resolution No. 23-03 which DENIES Coastal
Development Permit No. 05-081.
584
We, Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch, immediate next-door
neighbors at 31862 W. Sea Level Dr., CONCUR with
Resolution No. 23-03.

FACTS
General description of the area: West Sea Level Drive
extends from Broad Beach Road to the ocean. On the
west side of Sea Level Drive there are five undeveloped lots, all located in an ESHA. All five lots are less than 100 feet from Encinal Creek – – “the stream”. The lot that is the subject of this permit, Lot 165, located at 31864 W.

Sea level Drive, is one of the five above mentioned lots.

The five contiguous, nonconforming, undersized lots are owned by several different owners. Not one of these lots can be developed without several variances being
granted and in particular, a septic setback.
31864 W. Sea Level Dr (Lot 165 - a 6,950 sq.ft. parcel) was purchased by the present applicants in January
2019. Malibu became a City in September 2003.

Malibu’s more restrictive building code applies to lot 165.

In particular, the septic setback from the creek
requirement, increased from 50 ft. To 100 ft.

The reasoning for denying the variance is that the
difficulties created by denying the variance were created 585
by purchasing a property with a septic system restriction already in place.

Thus, the owners are denied claiming a “taking’ by the
fact that they bought the restricted property and it was restricted prior to purchase, not after purchase.

It would be unreasonable for the applicant to assume
such a level of development would be approved when the
lots were purchased given the limitations of the MMC and LCP, the highly visible nature of the lot, and the impact such a development would have. The applicable
standards of the MMC and LCP have not changed since
the time of purchase, and should have been anticipated
by the applicant. The California Coastal Act which is
implemented in Malibu through the LCP, provides strict
protections to coastal resources to ensure their protection and enjoyment in perpetuity – – and to promote this, and other, public policies, for the benefit of all the limitations on development are made across all properties in the
coastal zone in Malibu, and apply equally to all.

Development on coastal bluffs, and in close proximity to the beach and ocean facing has particularly strict
standards, given the sensitive nature of these Coastal
resources. When the applicant purchased the property,
they should have considered the situation when they
determined the price to pay for the property – – and
should not have assumed that they would be able to
obtain relief from these standards in order to maximize 586
development. To expect, to not only obtain discretionary relief, but to obtain relief to allow the maximum
development allowed under the MMC and the LCP would
be able to construct a project that is unreasonable.

Further, the owners cannot claim special circumstances
because similar properties, i.e. the undeveloped four lots adjacent to lot 165, are primarily under the identical
zoning classification with similar developmental
limitations.

Similarly, granting a variance is against public interest and safety. Not only will one variance have to be granted, but five variances will have to be granted to develop the area.

Therefore, five septic systems located within 100 feet of the stream could not only eviscerate any public health
considerations, but the impact of a septic malfunction on the stream could be enormous.

Of further note, Encinal Creek , “the stream”, empties into the ocean within a few hundred feet of Lot 165. Seepage from the septic systems could cause unimaginable
damage to the sea life and the ocean in general.

Regarding privacy issues, our residence, located at 31862 W. Sea Level Drive, is the adjacent residence to the south of 31864 West Sea Level Drive, the site of this application.

The north side of our residence looks out onto the south side of the applicant’s proposed residence. Our master
587
bedroom and master bathroom have large windows
facing north. On the first floor, our den has large windows also facing north. The windows on the south side of the proposed residence will offer a very clear view into our master bedroom, master bath and our den.

The applicant’s project, as it stands now, would have a significant adverse impact upon our use and enjoyment of our property. Due to the fact that the applicant’s proposed project is immediately adjacent to our residence, renders the impact on us significantly more and significantly
different from the general impact it would have on other lots in the area residence, as proposed, would block light to our residence and massively invade our privacy, both visually and audibly. In addition, our views of the Santa Monica Mountains will be substantially diminished.

Thus, a finding that the project be downsized and
relocated five feet further from the creek would greatly ameliorate the impact the project has on our ability to use and enjoy our residence.

As noted previously, there are five contiguous, undersized lots, all bordering Encinal Creek, all are encumbered by the same restrictions. In addition to the applicant’s lot, all the lots will need variances in order to get building
permits. Thus, at a minimum, the Planning
Commissioners will have to grant at least 5+ variances. 588
Granting these 5+, variances will substantially and
detrimentally affect Encinal Creek, as well as the neighbor hood.

First, the cumulative effect of zoning variances on storm water runoff should be considered. As the current project is planning to cover 1738 ft.² of a 6950 ft.² parcel.. If the project was downsized even by 1 or 2% the detrimental
effect of groundwater runoff would be significantly
reduced.

The effects of a 1 percentage point decrease of
impervious cover for a 6,000 square foot property are
significant. The math is roughly as follows: on a six
thousand square foot lot decreasing the impervious
surface by 1 percent —roughly 60 square feet—noting
that every one inch of rainfall produces run-off equating to 36 gallons. Then multiply 36 gallons of storm water by
the average yearly rainfall in Malibu and you will see that in one year it is increased exponentially.

If the applicant were to choose to follow the Planning
Staff’s recommendations and downsize the residence
thereby decreasing the impervious cover, the following
result could be achieved:

Because of the decreased impervious cover on
applicant’s property, as well as the adjacent five
589
properties, stormwater runoff will be decreased by
thousands of gallons every year.

Additionally, impermeable surfaces are bad for Encinal
Creek. Since the storm water is not able to absorb into the ground, and much more of it runs off into the stream, it will increase the likelihood of flooding and bank erosion in these areas. Thus, the increased stormwater can cause vast amounts of property damage and increase sediment
deposits in Encinal Creek. The water also gets super
heated on the dark surfaces and this can stress or even kill various stream inhabitants. All inhabitants are harmed in someway by impermeable surfaces, but some are
much more sensitive than others. Any stream that has
about 10% of the source of its water derived from runoff from an impervious surface has a drastically less aquatic life and can only support very tolerant insects. Any stream whose source of water is derived from a larger impervious area - above a 20% - has no chance of sustaining life
and has become too polluted and damaged because of
the runoff.

At the present moment, the area is undeveloped and does not contribute to the pollution problems created by
impermeable surfaces. In order to limit the detrimental effects of an impermeable surface, all development in this ESHA must be the least intrusive possible.
590
It is important to note that Monarch Butterfly habitats have suffered severely from land development. Increased toxicity of the ground water runoff has contributed to the problem. Less impermeable surfaces equals less toxicity.

Additional information to consider:

There have been many documents and oral arguments
associated with this project. The applicant has attempted to persuade the reader by comparing the proposed
development at 31864 West Level Dr.— to the past
development of 31862 West Sea Level Dr. The attempted
comparison is misleading.

Additionally, we respectfully request the Commissioners dismiss all claims made by the applicant that use the
residence and associated development at 31862 W Sea
Level Dr., to support development at 31864 West Sea
Level Dr.

In addition, we request that all technical reports submitted by the applicant be reviewed if more than a year has
passed since the report was written.

Additionally, and importantly, a current study of the water table is critically important. Not only has it been a winter of a lot of rain, but some predict that it’s going to be a lot more severe weather on a regular basis.
591
Any device used to ameliorate the detrimental effects of storm water must be designed based current conditions,
as well as, be subject to regular inspections. Erosion can severely affect the storm water device, rendering it
useless, and in some cases, can create additional
problems.

In addition, the current plans are to build a 1,799 sq. ft. two story single-family residence, plus a 995 sq.ft
basement on a 6,950 sq.ft. lot — the maximum allowable.

The staff advised the applicant to consider another
alternative that would maximize stream setbacks,
primarily to downsize the project. The applicant was
given time to do so. The applicant has indicated that he is unwilling to re-submit alternative plans that would have a lesser impact.

In conclusion, the variances should be denied for all the the following reasons: the burden was self created, the necessity of granting multiple variances to other parties, the applicant does not suffer special circumstances. In addition, the applicant cannot claim they’re denied
special privileges enjoyed by the neighbors. In addition, there are huge public safety implications.

This matter is about reducing the size of the residence, and making less of an impact on the ESHA and on the
surrounding area.

Respectfully submitted,
592
Elizabeth and Glenn Lynch

*It should be noted that there are lots that have been
developed on the west side of West Sea Level Drive.

These three lots, south of lot 165, were developed in the 1990s. The lots were created by subdivision. One lot is 11,720 sq feet and the other lot is 10,724 sq ft. Page 1 staff report application 5–89–1037. The application was approved with conditions requiring a 50 foot septic
system set back from Encinal Creek. (Pg 6 Application
Number 5–89–1037 heard by the Coastal Commission on
3/13–16/19.)
593
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Planning Commission: 31864 W. Sea Level Drive From: Jon N
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Planning Commission: 31864 W. Sea Level Drive To Malibu Planning Commission:

RE: 31864 W. Sea Level Drive)
As a member of the Malibu Community and a friend of the Bedrossian Family, I wanted to show my support for their project on West Sea Level Drive.

I have reviewed the plans and believe this project will greatly improve the neighborhood with no negative impacts on West Sea Level Drive and will help welcome a good family and home to the community of Malibu.

As a member of our HOA here at MEHOA, I am confident that this will improve all of our properties. I deeply encourage you to approve this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jonathan K. Nakano
‐‐
Jonathan K. Nakano DMD

Board Certified Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon

“This e-mail message and any documents attached to it are confidential and may contain information that is protected from disclosure by various federal and state laws, including the HIPAA privacy rule (45 C.F.R., Part 164). This information is intended to be used solely by the entity or individual to whom this message is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this message without the sender's written permission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Accordingly, if you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and then delete this message.”
594
1 Planning Commission
From: Shelia Gwin
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 12:54 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Garo Bedrossian
Subject: Support Letter for G. Bedrossian - Sea Level Drive Project Attachments: DOC009.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please find attached letter. Thank you for your consideration.

Have a great day,
Shelia Gwin
Bookkeeper/Manager
Geoffrey's Malibu
27400 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 12
595
596
1 Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 4A 31864 Sea Level
Attachments: Sea Level Dr Chumash Burial Grounds.pdf; pc -item 4 A - 31864 seallevel 4-17-23 (3).docx From:

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 7:41 PM
To: [email protected]; Skylar Peak <[email protected]>; Kraig Hill <[email protected]>; Dennis Smith <[email protected]>; Jeffrey D Jennings <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 4A 31864 Sea Level
Commissioners, attached are Slow Growth's comments on 31864 Sealevel Drive . Please let me know if you have any questions.
597
To Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu CoaliƟon for Slow Growth (MCSG) by PaƩ Healy Date 4‐17‐23
Agenda Item 4A Coastal Development Permit No. 05‐081/31864 Sea Level

OPPOSE/ DENY
Honorable Commissioners,
IntroducƟon We support the staff report’s recommendaƟon for denial. We believe the Lynch’s raised a very good point. When the Applicant purchased this property they were aware of the numerous constraints on the property, and yet the Applicants want to develop the property to the to a greatest extent possible ignoring the lot’s constraints.

Prior to approval further studies are needed.

CumulaƟve Impact In addiƟon to this lot there are 4 more substandard lots along the creek which will be developed. The cumulaƟve impact of 5 OWTS could/would pollute the creek.

Good planning dictates that before you develop anything on this parcel, the city study the cumulaƟve effect of adding 5 OWTS along the creek. Since the creek ouƞall is into an Area of Special Biological Significance, instead piecemealing these sepƟc systems one at Ɵme, their cumulaƟve impact should be studied now to protect the creek and the ocean water quality. AŌer the study the city will have a beƩer idea of what can be developed on each of these 5 lots.

Square Footage According to staff report the total allowable square footage is 1737 sq.Ō., (25% of the lot size). Just because the applicant is allowed 25% the lot area for a structure doesn’t mean they should be allowed the maximum allowable footage especially since the residence is so close to a blue line stream ESHA and 4 addiƟonal residences will be constructed along this blue line stream on substandard lots in the future. We recommend the residence be redesigned to be the same size as the residence beside the Creek at the entrance to Sea Level Dr. which according to the website REDFIN is 1093 sq Ō. and that all future applicants be limited to 25% of the lot size but no greater than 1093 square feet.

Basement How high will the groundwater level be in wet years when the water table is high? The city has to be confident there will be no basement flooding. If 598
unknown, a updated groundwater study must be done because of the residence proximity to Encinal Creek. One should be sure there will not be a situaƟon like La Paz where groundwater was reached during excavaƟon. Moreover, this appears to be a spec house and a new resident owner should be assured there will be no basement flooding.

Cultural Resources We disagree with the Archeologist assessment there no cultural resources onsite. Since creeks were a water source, the Chumash built their villages beside creeks, Encinal Creek was no excepƟon. A Chumash burial site was found just south of this property. Because the Chumash buried their dead next to creeks and their villages were next to creeks, it is quite possible there may be Chumash remains and/or arƟfacts at his locaƟon. Clearly having a monitor for 3 Ō of excavaƟon only is not enough. All excavaƟon and soil disturbance must be monitored.

Please see the aƩached Los Angeles Times arƟcle regarding discovery of Chumash remains at Sealevel Drive.

The applicant should be required to have a Chumash Monitor as well as an archaeologist on site during all grading, excavaƟon and other soil disturbance to be sure arƟfacts are preserved. In addiƟon, LCP requirements re Cultural Resources need to be adhered to.

Permeable Surfaces What percentage of the lot is permeable? Does it meet the city requirement for lot permeability?
Ground Floor Rear Deck
Is the ground floor deck permeable? Is it fire resistant? This deck shouldn’t be allowed. How far is the deck set back from the creek? Decks are development and development is not allowed within 100 feet of this creek, a blue line stream.

Hence the deck should be eliminated.

Landscaping Since this is a designated Monarch overwintering site, the project landscaping should consist of naƟve drought tolerant fire‐resistant pollinator plants especially ones which are the Monarchs favorites.

Conclusion This project should be denied. A smaller project built. AddiƟonal studies must be done. Based on the outcome of the studies, the project redesigned
599
Thank you for considering these comments.
600
2/21/22, 2:08 PM Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-28-we-1385-story.html 1/5 Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work continues.

BY JEFFREY L. RABIN AND RON RUSSELL
MARCH 28, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS
The state has ordered a halt to a Malibu development project after construction workers using a backhoe dug up the remains of six American Indians from an apparent Chumash Indian burial ground near Encinal Canyon.

The Coastal Commission issued the stop-work order Tuesday at the request of the state Native American Heritage Commission, which received a report Friday that Indian remains had been found on the site.

Although the Coastal Commission has the authority to issue stop-work orders, it cannot enforce them except by asking a judge to issue a restraining order. Critics say that often by the time a restraining order is issued in such cases, it is too late to serve its purpose.

A forensic examination Tuesday by the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office determined that the skeletonized remains of five individuals and partial remains of a sixth were those of Indians.

Gail McNulty, staff analyst at the Native American Heritage Commission’s headquarters in Sacramento, said removal of the remains apparently violated state law governing construction at known archeological sites.
601
2/21/22, 2:08 PM Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-28-we-1385-story.html 2/5 Although an archeologist and an Indian monitor were at the scene when the remains were unearthed, McNulty said in an interview the commission was concerned “because the law was not adhered to.”
McNulty said the state Resources Code requires construction crews to stop work and notify the county coroner when remains are discovered. She said the law also requires the reburial of the remains “with appropriate dignity” either at the site or another location after efforts have been made to locate descendants.

For the time being, the remains are being kept in a trailer at the site on Sea Level Drive, she said.

But Century City attorney Alan Robert Block, who represents developer Moses Lerner, said his client acted in good faith by having an archeologist and Indian monitor on the scene. Lerner plans to build three homes on the scenic two-acre site in a neighborhood of expensive homes overlooking the ocean near the mouth of Encinal Canyon. “Nobody has gone in and tried to desecrate any burial site,” Block said. He said coroner’s representatives indicated they thought “everything done on the site had been done with a great deal of care.”
Coastal Commission officials acted to stop work on the site after the Native American Heritage Commission faxed a letter detailing the alleged violations.

The Coastal Commission’s South Coast district director, Chuck Damm, said a commission planner learned of the discovery of the remains Friday when he stopped by the site after checking another Malibu project.

Damm added: “It was known there was an archeological and burial site present” last year when the commission approved Lerner’s development plans. 602
2/21/22, 2:08 PM Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-28-we-1385-story.html 3/5 The property, which Lerner bought in 1989, has generated controversy before. At the Coastal Commission hearing on his plans last year, opponents argued that the project threatened to destroy one of the few Monarch butterfly habitats left on the Pacific Coast.

The area next to the property serves as a winter home for up to 20,000 Monarchs.

The commission approved the development after imposing several restrictions aimed at helping to protect the butterflies. The commission had earlier allowed Lerner to chop down several trees on the property that he said were diseased but that butterfly enthusiasts said were vital to the Monarchs.

Neighbors said workers began demolishing an older house occupying the site about two weeks ago and that new construction ap peared to have begun last week. “I guess they were in a hurry to get the work started before cityhood,” said Sarah Dixon, who lives nearby. “There is a lot of that going on all over Malibu.” Malibu’s slow-growth-oriented City Council, which takes office tonight, is expected to approve a law that will temporarily ban new commercial and multifamily residential development and severely restrict construction of single-family homes. The restrictions would become effective immediately.

Attorney Block, noting Malibu’s imminent cityhood, said he “can’t help but think a lot of controversy stems from neighbors trying to get the project stopped” before Lerner has a vested right to proceed on the strength of having achieved substantial construction. (What constitutes substantial construction may become an issue if the new city imposes its expected building moratorium.) Block said it would be “very inequitable” for Malibu to stop the project now.

Pam Emerson, an enforcement officer with the Coastal Commission, said the commission’s stop-work order was intended to halt “all development activity on the property.”
LOG IN
603
2/21/22, 2:08 PM Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-28-we-1385-story.html 4/5 Block, however, contended that the order applied only to grading and tree removal.

In any event, activity continued at the construction site Wednesday, and workers entered and left the property periodically, neighbors said.

The Chumash Indians once inhabited a vast area stretching along the coast from Malibu to San Luis Obispo and inland as far as the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley.

At its peak, the tribe’s population may have reached 20,000. But after the arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 18th Century, the Chumash were decimated by diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, and measles for which they had no natural immunity.

An estimated 4,000 people of Chumash descent still live in the region, mostly in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, where the schools include Chumash programs in the curriculum. There is also a 100-acre Chumash reservation in Santa Barbara County.

Chumash villages, burial grounds and artifacts have been found at various locations throughout the region.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
He thought it was a date. Instead, he walked into a deadly MS-13 trap Family behind Fatburger under investigation for alleged fraud, money laundering, records show

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Can you be healed by a sound frequency? From sound baths to TikTok, a debate (gently) rages Review: Bryan Cranston tests the bounds of free speech in ‘Power of Sail’ at the Geffen Playhouse

SUBSCRIBERS ARE READING
604
2/21/22, 2:08 PM Building Site May Be Indian Burial Ground : Malibu: State Coastal Commission orders construction to halt, but neighbors say work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-28-we-1385-story.html 5/5 Subscribe for unlimited access
Follow Us
eNewspaper
Coupons
Find/Post Jobs
Place an Ad
Media Kit: Why the
L. A. Times?
Bestcovery
Copyright © 2022, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | CA Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell My Personal Information Courteney Cox already has fame and fortune. Now, she says, ‘I want to be respected’ 605
1 Planning Commission
Subject: Planning matter this evening
From: Tom Keane
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 2:18 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Garo Bedrossian
Subject: Fwd: Planning matter this evening
Please see messages below.

Thomas Keane
Chief Executive Officer
Keane Capital
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Keane
Date: April 13, 2023 at 1:11:37 PM PDT
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Garo Bedrossian
Subject: Re: Planning matter this evening
Ms Evans
At request of my neighbor, I am again sending this note of support for his family project on West Sea Level Drive. I believe resetting the meeting date requires another such submittal to have this support noted.

Should you have any questions please let me know.

Thank you.

Thomas Keane
Chief Executive Officer
Keane Capital
Sent from my iPhone
606
2 On Feb 6, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

Tom,

Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and I have added you as an interested party for this project in the Development Database.

Regards,

Rebecca Evans | Administrative Assistant | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456‐2489 extension 246

From: Tom Keane
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Alexander Montano <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning matter this evening

Dear Malibu Planning Department,
RE: Garo Bedrossian Permit Application
I’d like to voice my support for the project to
be considered on Monday, February 6th,
2023. I am a neighbor on East Sea Level,
living within the same Homeowner tract as
the proposed development.
607
3 While not on the same street, as president of
the MEHOA homeowner organization, I do
closely monitor such projects. I have been
engaged on this one with Garo since
2019. I believe the Planning Department
should approve this project as in my view it
is completely compliant. Septic needs should
ameliorate any tight creekside setbacks.

Finally, as you likely know, MEHOA has been
engaged for nearly two decades in a
dispute/litigation with the MRCA, and as
we've recently settled the open issues, one
key element is to do a fire department
requested entry widening to the street as
accessed via Broad Beach Road. This fully
addresses past concerns raised by LA County
fire regarding challenging access and should
clear the path for Garo and other land
owning folks hoping to build homes in our
Malibu community. I strongly encourage
approval. As one currently building in the
tract, the process is beyond excruciating. My
CDP was issued in 2014, and my quite small,
very simple home is still not
completed. Please find a better path for
Garo and his family.

Thank you for your time considering my
input.

Sincerely,
608
4 Thomas Keane President Malibu Encinal
Home Owners Association (MEHOA)

609
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, at 5:30 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. 23-003 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-03, determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 05-081 for the construction of a new 1,799 square foot, two-story single-family residence plus a 398 square foot attached garage and 995 square foot basement, 240 square foot ground floor deck, 349 square foot second-floor deck, 125 square foot second-floor balcony, permeable driveway and onsite wastewater treatment system; including Variance No. 09-023 for construction in a stream Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area buffer, Variance No. 16-024 to allow for the onsite wastewater treatment system dispersal field to encroach into the required 100-foot setback from the Creek, and Site Plan Review No. 06-032 for height over 18 feet but not to exceed 26 feet, 2 inches for a pitched roof LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 31864 Sea Level Dr / 4470-027-020 / Single-family Medium (SFM) APPLICANT / OWNER: Schmitz and Associates, Inc. / Garo Bedrossian APPELLANTS: Patt Healy, Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth, Elizabeth Lynch, and Glenn Lynch APPEALABLE TO: California Coastal Commission
APPLICATION FILED: April 26, 2005
APPEAL FILED: May 2, 2023
CASE PLANNER: Raneika Brooks, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 276
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 City Council’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling 805-585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY 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.

MAUREEN TAMURI, Interim Planning Director Date: October 17, 2024

EXHIBIT H
610

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: March 20, 2025 Meeting date: March 24, 2025 Subject: Fire Recovery Work Session Agendas
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on which topics should be scheduled for upcoming Fire Recovery Work Sessions.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List, but this has been prioritized due to the declared emergency.

DISCUSSION: At its regular meeting on March 10, 2025, the City Council took action to establish reoccurring special meetings in the format of Work Sessions, on Thursdays at 3:00 p.m. each week there is not a regular meeting scheduled. The work sessions will provide an opportunity for in-depth discussion on specific topics, policy matters, and strategic initiatives related to the Palisades Fire Rebuilds.

The first special meeting was held on March 19, 2025, and the Council discussed like-forlike rebuilds and provided direction to staff on future policy discussions. The Council continued discussion of the Rebuild Center Organization, Self-Certification, and GeoCoastal Requirements.

The Council can provide direction to staff on how to prioritize these topics and other policy discussions for upcoming work sessions. The next work sessions are tentatively scheduled for April 3, 2025 and April 10, 2025
ALTERNATIVES: If the Council determines it does not have a topic for the next work session, it can direct staff to cancel the meeting.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

City Council Meeting
03-24-25
Item

6.A.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 8.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Alexis Brown, Deputy City Manager
Date prepared: March 12, 2025 Meeting date: March 24, 2025 Subject: Council Appointment to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: Councilmember Silverstein to make an appointment to the Planning Commission.

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 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: Kraig Hill, Councilmember Silverstein’s appointment, resigned from the Planning Commission effective March 23, 2025. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54974, a notice of unscheduled vacancy was posted on March 6, 2025. Councilmember Silverstein may make his appointment at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy

2. Applications received to date
City Council Meeting
03-24-25
Item

8.A.
1 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org Unscheduled Vacancy Notice
(Government Code Section 54974)

VACANT POSITION PREVIOUS INCUMBENT DATE APPOINTMENT

CAN BE MADE
Planning Commission Kraig Hill March 19, 2025
Interested citizens should contact the City Clerk at (310) 456-2489, extension 228 or by email at [email protected] for more information.

Posted: March 6, 2025
________________________________
Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Attachment 1
2 m
';":I'L
‘Iii'-
Ea EE)‘ W1 =1 D
City 0f Malibu, f-gJi
23825 Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, California 0265 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (310) 456-2489 fax (3 1 0) 456-2760 * CITY OF MALIBU
City Board / Commission / Committee Member Application
As a candidate for membership on a City Commission / Committee, please complete this application, profile and qualification form in order for the City Council to best consider your application for appointment.

Please feel free to provide additional sheets or a resume, if desired. Completed applications are to be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, or via email to [email protected].

Board / Commission / Committee Applying for: manning commiSSion Applicant’s Name Marni Kamins wee-M. —"i-;
Home Street Address & City , State and Zip Code:
3434 serra road
Ht a, mam a
Home Telephone Cell Telephone w“
Work Telephone Email Address
Profile Information: Please provide detailed information which demonstrates experience or background applicable to the Board / Commission / Committee (including education and experience on study groups, task forces and committees, community / civic and business activities).

Additionally, i am a Malibu native. Growinq up in the Sunset Mesa, i also have cherished memories of playing on the beach near Tuna canyon where my grandparents lived. My a er serve as an a Junc pro essor a epper lne or years. ave roo s In ls r‘l lltl lrp nf thiQ tnwn
Page l of4 Attachment 2
3 Qualifications: Please provide detailed information which demonstrates professional skills and talents applicable to this Board / Commission / Committee.
here while they rebuild. While i do not have familiarity with zoning codes, I do have a willingness to learn and a commitment to the community. lVIy lived experience as a native, as a mom, and as a Role and Issues of Board / Commission / Committee: Please provide detailed information which demonstrates your opinion as to the role of a City Commissioner / Committee or Board Member and issues ou feel need to be addressed b Malibu which relate to this Board / Commiss10n / Committee y understanding is that a planning commISSioner in Malibu plays a critical role in helping rotections identif in areas where bureaucratic hurdles ma im ede ro ress and determining where additional safeguards are needed. Ultimately, the commissioner is gUI ing ai u s re ui ing process w ie preservmg i s is inc ive c arm an na ura Annnl*' 1' uVI Iuluvuy

Page 2 of 4 ends

4 Certification: Please initial naxt to the Board / Commission / Committee you are applying for to confirm you meet the membership qualifications.

Building Board ofAppeals
o I am not an employee ofthe City of Malibu.
0 I am qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction
Malibu Arts Commission:
o l am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
o l am not an official or employee ofthe City of Malibu.

Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Commission
0 l am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
0 l am not, nor have I been in the last five years, a park owner or homeowner in a mobilehome park o If appointed, l understand that I will be required to file a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700), pursuant to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code Parks and Recreation Commission
0 I am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
0 I am not an official or employee ofthe City of Malibu. mk Planning Commission o I am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
o I am not an official or employee ofthe City of Malibu. 0 If appointed, I understand that I will be required to file a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700), pursuant to Govemment Code Section 87200 Public Safety Commission
0 I am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
0 I am not an official or employee ofthe City of Malibu.

Public Works Commission
0 I am a resident ofthe City of Malibu
0 I am not an official or employee ofthe City of Malibu.

Wastewater Advisory Committee
0 I am either a resident or property owner in the City of Malibu, currently employed with the City of Malibu, or a wastewater or onsite wastewater treatment system professional Ex-officio Position (Malibu Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, or Public Safety Commission)
o I am not a resident of the City of Malibu. I live outside the city limits but within the 90265- zipcode area. I understand the ex-officio member shall not have a vote on the commission and may not serve as either chair or vice chair ofthe commission.

Page 3 of 4 ends

5 Acknowledgcmmt, Authorization and Release
1 understand that in conncction with this application for 21 board. committee, 0r commission appointment, mis document and the infonnation contained hcrcin may be mudc available to the public upon a public records rcqucst. By signing and submitting this application, l certify and declare under the penalty of perjuiy nndcr the laws oftlie State ofCalifomia that thc foregoing is true and correct.

J / / 2/23/25
Signature/of Applicant Date

Page 4 ends

Malibu City CouncilMarch 24, 2025

Malibu City Council
March 24, 2025