Malibu City Council
April 28, 2025

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

GOLDMAN SACHS BK USA CD
NEW YORK NY ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.400% DUE 08/13/25
DTD 08/13/24 FC 08/13/25
CUSIP 38150VWM7
Acquired 08/05/24 S nc 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.0070 250,017.50 17.50 6,961.65 11,000 4.39

BMW BK N AMERICA CD
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.100% DUE 09/17/25
DTD 03/17/23 FC 09/17/23
CUSIP 05580AX58
Acquired 03/14/23 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.3520 250,880.00 880.00 523.97 12,750 5.08

STATE BANK OF INDIA CD
NEW YORK NY ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.950% DUE 12/02/25
DTD 12/02/22 FC 06/02/23
CUSIP 856285V81
Acquired 11/28/22 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.4700 251,175.00 1,175.00 4,068.49 12,375 4.92

SALLIE MAE BANK/SALT CD
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.750% DUE 12/15/25
DTD 12/13/23 FC 06/13/24
CUSIP 795451DG5
Acquired 12/07/23 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.3990 250,997.50 997.50 3,546.23 11,875 4.73

BANK OF AMERICA NA CD
CHARLOTTE NC ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.950% DUE 01/05/26
DTD 07/03/24 FC 01/03/25
CUSIP 06051XFE7
Acquired 06/26/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.6160 251,540.00 1,540.00 2,983.56 12,375 4.91 072 ANCA ANC9
15

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

ISRAEL DISCOUNT BK OF CD
NEW YORK NY ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.450% DUE 02/09/26
DTD 08/07/24 FC 02/07/25
CUSIP 465076UQ8
Acquired 08/05/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.2970 250,742.50 742.50 1,615.41 11,125 4.43

DOLLAR BANK FSB PA CD
PITTSBURGH PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.000% DUE 02/27/26
DTD 08/28/24 FC 02/28/25
CUSIP 25665QDE2
Acquired 08/20/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 99.8610 249,652.50 -347.50 904.11 10,000 4.00

COMENITY BANK CD
WILMINGTON DE ACT/365

JUMBO CD FDIC INSURED
CPN 2.000% DUE 03/18/26
DTD 03/18/22 FC 04/18/22
CUSIP 99000QQW7
Acquired 03/15/22 L 0.23 200,000 100.00 200,000.00 97.6528 195,305.60 -4,694.40 153.43 4,000 2.04

SYNCHRONY BANK CD
DRAPER UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.000% DUE 03/24/26
DTD 03/24/23 FC 09/24/23
CUSIP 87165HX21
Acquired 03/14/23 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.8220 252,055.00 2,055.00 273.98 12,500 4.95

BARCLAYS BANK/DELAWAR CD
WILMINGTON DE ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.000% DUE 08/28/26
DTD 08/28/24 FC 02/28/25
CUSIP 06740KSW8
Acquired 08/20/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 99.8770 249,692.50 -307.50 876.72 10,000 4.00 072 ANCA ANC9
16

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

TEXAS EXCHANGE BK SSB CD
CROWLEY TX ACT/365

CALLABLE FDIC INSD
CPN 1.100% DUE 10/29/26
DTD 10/29/21 FC 11/29/21
CALL 04/29/25 @ 100.000
CUSIP 88241TMC1
Acquired 10/22/21 L 0.28 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 95.4430 238,607.50 -11,392.50 22.60 2,750 1.15

DISCOVER BANK CD
GREENWOOD DE ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.950% DUE 11/16/26
DTD 11/15/22 FC 05/15/23
CUSIP 254673Z66
Acquired 11/09/22 L 0.23 200,000 100.00 200,000.00 101.3890 202,778.00 2,778.00 3,715.89 9,900 4.88

UBS BANK USA CD
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 1.150% DUE 12/08/26
DTD 12/08/21 FC 01/08/22
CUSIP 90348JX96
Acquired 11/30/21 L 0.27 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 95.2220 238,055.00 -11,945.00 189.04 2,875 1.20

CALPRIVATE BANK CD
LA JOLLA CA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.050% DUE 02/16/27
DTD 08/14/24 FC 02/14/25
CUSIP 13135NCY4
Acquired 08/05/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 99.9720 249,930.00 -70.00 1,276.03 10,125 4.05

VALLEY NATL BK WAYNE CD
WAYNE NJ ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.600% DUE 03/11/27
DTD 03/11/24 FC 09/11/24
CUSIP 919853KW0
Acquired 03/05/24 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.9140 252,285.00 2,285.00 661.65 11,500 4.55 072 ANCA ANC9
17

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

BRADESCO BANK CD
CORAL GABLES FL ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.500% DUE 03/22/27
DTD 03/21/24 FC 09/21/24
CUSIP 10421AAT4
Acquired 03/05/24 L 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.7540 251,885.00 1,885.00 339.04 11,250 4.46

BNY MELLON NA CD
NEW YORK NY ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.600% DUE 06/01/27
DTD 05/29/24 FC 11/29/24
CUSIP 05584CP59
Acquired 05/23/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 101.0500 252,625.00 2,625.00 2,930.14 11,500 4.55

EAGLEMARK SVGS BK CD
CARSON CTY NV ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.700% DUE 07/02/27
DTD 07/03/24 FC 01/03/25
CUSIP 27004PFE8
Acquired 06/26/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 101.2950 253,237.50 3,237.50 2,832.88 11,750 4.63

CELTIC BANK CD
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 2.000% DUE 12/27/27
DTD 12/27/19 FC 01/27/20
CUSIP 15118RTH0
Acquired 12/09/19 L 0.27 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 94.5330 236,332.50 -13,667.50 68.50 5,000 2.11

AMERANT BANK NA CD
CORAL GABLES FL ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.050% DUE 03/28/28
DTD 03/28/25 FC 09/28/25
CUSIP 02357QCL9
Acquired 03/18/25 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 99.7590 249,397.50 -602.50 110.96 10,125 4.05 072 ANCA ANC9
18

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

UNIVEST BANK & TR CO CD
SOUDERTON PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.300% DUE 02/28/29
DTD 02/28/25 FC 03/28/25
CUSIP 91527PCP0
Acquired 02/20/25 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.6370 251,592.50 1,592.50 117.81 10,750 4.27

BEAL BANK USA CD
LAS VEGAS NV ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.700% DUE 05/30/29
DTD 06/05/24 FC 12/05/24
CUSIP 07371DR66
Acquired 05/23/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 102.1900 255,475.00 5,475.00 4,732.19 11,750 4.59

BEAL BANK - PLANO TX CD
PLANO TX ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.700% DUE 05/30/29
DTD 06/05/24 FC 12/05/24
CUSIP 07371BVU2
Acquired 05/23/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 102.1900 255,475.00 5,475.00 4,732.19 11,750 4.59

MORGAN STANLEY PVT BK CD
PURCHASE NY ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.650% DUE 05/30/29
DTD 05/30/24 FC 11/30/24
CUSIP 61768E4J9
Acquired 05/23/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 101.9920 254,980.00 4,980.00 3,885.62 11,625 4.55

TOYOTA FINL SGS BK CD
HENDERSON NV ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.500% DUE 06/28/29
DTD 06/28/24 FC 12/28/24
CUSIP 89235MPR6
Acquired 06/26/24 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 101.4360 253,590.00 3,590.00 2,897.26 11,250 4.43 072 ANCA ANC9
19

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Fixed Income Securities
Certificates of Deposit continued

ESTIMATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ACCRUED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INTEREST INCOME YIELD (%)

MORGAN STANLEY BK NA CD
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.250% DUE 02/26/30
DTD 02/26/25 FC 08/26/25
CUSIP 61690DS33
Acquired 02/20/25 S 0.29 250,000 100.00 250,000.00 100.5570 251,392.50 1,392.50 989.73 10,625 4.22 Total Certificates of Deposit 8.82 7,650,000 $7,650,000.00 $7,650,701.10 $701.10 $60,809.78 $321,900 4.21 Total Fixed Income Securities 94.06 $80,535,548.0 $81,596,752.49$1,061,204.40 $323,188.61 $2,108,019 2.58 9 $80,357,644.5
5 ^ Denotes Certificate of Deposit with a maturity date in the next 60 days. Please contact us for further investment opportunities or any assistance. nc Cost information for this tax lot is not covered by IRS reporting requirements. Unless indicated, cost for all other lots will be reported to the IRS.

Mutual Funds
If a portion of your fund position was converted, the 'Client Investment' value may include reinvestments from previously held positions.

Open End Mutual Funds
Open End Mutual Fund shares are priced at net asset value. Estimated Annual Income and Yield refer to Dividends and Interest Income only, and typically do not reflect Total return.

Although retail and government money market funds seek to preserve a net asset value (NAV) of $1.00 per share, in a negative interest rate environment, the fund's net asset value (NAV) may float to the nearest 1/100th of a cent (i.e., $0.9999). When the NAV is floating, the value of your investment will fluctuate and lose value.

EST MATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INCOME YIELD (%)

FIDELITY FUNDS

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
FRSXX
On Reinvestment
Acquired 11/26/24 S nc 87,093.52000 1.00 87,093.52 87,093.52 0.00 Acquired 12/13/24 S nc 6,005.48000 1.00 6,005.48 6,005.48 0.00 Acquired 12/31/24 S nc 4,423,667.46000 1.00 4,423,667.46 4,423,667.46 0.00 Acquired 03/27/25 S nc 478,686.40000 1.00 478,686.40 478,686.40 0.00 072 ANCA ANC9
20

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Mutual Funds
Open End Mutual Funds continued

EST MATED
% OF ADJ PRICE/ ADJ COST/ CURRENT CURRENT UNREALIZED ANNUAL ANNUAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ORIG COST PRICE MARKET VALUE GAIN/LOSS INCOME YIELD (%) Acquired 03/31/25 S nc 96,762.44000 1.00 96,762.44 96,762.44 0.00 Reinvestments S nc 60,256 1.00 60,256.00 60,256.00 0.00 Total 5.94 5,152,471.30000 $1.00 $5,152,471.30 1.0000 $5,152,471.30 $0.00 $200,946 3.90 Client Investment (Excluding Reinvestments) $5,092,215.30 Gain/Loss on Client Investment (Including Reinvestments) $60,256.00 Total Open End Mutual Funds 5.94 $5,152,471.30 $5,152,471.30 $0.00 $200,946 3.90 Total Mutual Funds 5.94 $5,152,471.30 $5,152,471.30 $0.00 $200,946 3.90 nc Cost information for this tax lot is not covered by IRS reporting requirements. Unless indicated, cost for all other lots will be reported to the IRS.

Activity detail
Income and distributions

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/03 Cash DIVIDEND FIDELITY FUNDS 14,842.80

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
022825 4,562,820.96000
AS OF 2/28/25
03/06 Cash INTEREST AMERICAN COML BK & TR CD 958.90
OTTAWA IL ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.000% DUE 06/06/25
DTD 12/06/23 FC 01/06/24
030625 250,000
CUSIP 02519ACB1
072 ANCA ANC9
21

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Activity detail continued
Income and distributions

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/10 Cash INTEREST UBS BANK USA CD 220.55
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 1.150% DUE 12/08/26
DTD 12/08/21 FC 01/08/22
030825 250,000
AS OF 3/08/25
CUSIP 90348JX96
03/11 Cash INTEREST VALLEY NATL BK WAYNE CD 5,702.74
WAYNE NJ ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.600% DUE 03/11/27
DTD 03/11/24 FC 09/11/24
031125 250,000
CUSIP 919853KW0
03/17 Cash INTEREST BMW BK N AMERICA CD 6,322.60
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.100% DUE 09/17/25
DTD 03/17/23 FC 09/17/23
031725 250,000
CUSIP 05580AX58
03/17 Cash INTEREST US TREASURY 334,600.00
NOTES
CPN 3.500% DUE 09/15/25
DTD 09/15/22 FC 03/15/23
031525 19,120,000
AS OF 3/15/25
CUSIP 91282CFK2
03/17 Cash INTEREST US TREASURY 81,637.50
NOTES
CPN 1.750% DUE 03/15/25
DTD 03/15/22 FC 09/15/22
031525 9,330,000
AS OF 3/15/25
CUSIP 91282CED9
072 ANCA ANC9
22

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Activity detail continued
Income and distributions

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/18 Cash INTEREST COMENITY BANK CD 306.85
WILMINGTON DE ACT/365

JUMBO CD FDIC INSURED
CPN 2.000% DUE 03/18/26
DTD 03/18/22 FC 04/18/22
031825 200,000
CUSIP 99000QQW7
03/21 Cash INTEREST BRADESCO BANK CD 5,578.77
CORAL GABLES FL ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.500% DUE 03/22/27
DTD 03/21/24 FC 09/21/24
032125 250,000
CUSIP 10421AAT4
03/24 Cash INTEREST AMERICAN EXPR NATL BK CD 2,044.38
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 2.050% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/22 FC 09/23/22
032425 200,000
CUSIP 02589ABV3
03/24 Cash INTEREST SYNCHRONY BANK CD 6,198.63
DRAPER UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.000% DUE 03/24/26
DTD 03/24/23 FC 09/24/23
032425 250,000
CUSIP 87165HX21
03/24 Cash INTEREST ALLY BANK CD 6,544.52
BENSALEM PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.250% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/23 FC 09/23/23
032425 250,000
CUSIP 02007GM34
072 ANCA ANC9
23

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Activity detail continued
Income and distributions

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/24 Cash INTEREST WELLS FARGO BANK NA CD 939.73
SIOUX FALLS SD ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.900% DUE 05/23/25
DTD 05/23/23 FC 06/23/23
032325 250,000
AS OF 3/23/25
CUSIP 949764CT9
03/27 Cash INTEREST CELTIC BANK CD 383.56
SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 2.000% DUE 12/27/27
DTD 12/27/19 FC 01/27/20
032725 250,000
CUSIP 15118RTH0
03/28 Cash INTEREST UNIVEST BANK & TR CO CD 824.66
SOUDERTON PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.300% DUE 02/28/29
DTD 02/28/25 FC 03/28/25
032825 250,000
CUSIP 91527PCP0
03/28 Cash DIVIDEND ALLSPRING 1,543.95

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET

SWEEP CLASS
03/31 Cash INTEREST US TREASURY 50,000.00
NOTES
CPN 2.500% DUE 03/31/27
DTD 03/31/22 FC 09/30/22
033125 4,000,000
CUSIP 91282CEF4
03/31 Cash INTEREST US TREASURY 45,000.00
NOTES
CPN 2.250% DUE 03/31/26
DTD 03/31/19 FC 09/30/19
033125 4,000,000
CUSIP 9128286L9
072 ANCA ANC9
24

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Activity detail continued
Income and distributions

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/31 Cash INTEREST TEXAS EXCHANGE BK SSB CD 218.49
CROWLEY TX ACT/365

CALLABLE FDIC INSD
CPN 1.100% DUE 10/29/26
DTD 10/29/21 FC 11/29/21
032925 250,000
AS OF 3/29/25
CUSIP 88241TMC1
03/31 Cash DIVIDEND ALLSPRING 0.10

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET

SWEEP CLASS
033125 902
Total Income and distributions: $563,868.73
Securities sold and redeemed

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/17 Cash REDEMPTION -9,330,000.00000 US TREASURY 9,330,000.00 NOTES
CPN 1.750% DUE 03/15/25
DTD 03/15/22 FC 09/15/22
CUSIP 91282CED9
03/24 Cash REDEMPTION -200,000.00000 AMERICAN EXPR NATL BK CD 200,000.00 SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 2.050% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/22 FC 09/23/22
CUSIP 02589ABV3
03/24 Cash REDEMPTION -250,000.00000 ALLY BANK CD 250,000.00 BENSALEM PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.250% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/23 FC 09/23/23
CUSIP 02007GM34
03/28 Cash SALE -641.30000 FIDELITY FUNDS 1.0000 641.30

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
Total Securities sold and redeemed: $9,780,641.30
072 ANCA ANC9
25

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Activity detail continued
Securities purchased

DATE ACCOUNT TYPE TRANSACTION QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 03/03 Cash REINVEST DIV 14,842.80000 FIDELITY FUNDS -14,842.80

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
REINVEST AT 1.000
03/18 Cash PURCHASE 250,000.00000 AMERANT BANK NA CD 100.0000 -250,000.00 CORAL GABLES FL ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 4.050% DUE 03/28/28
DTD 03/28/25 FC 09/28/25
CUSIP 02357QCL9
03/18 Cash PURCHASE 5,025,000.00000 US TREASURY 94.8554 -4,766,494.32 ACCRUED INT NOTES -17,125.95
CPN 2.625% DUE 07/31/29
DTD 07/31/22 FC 01/31/23
CUSIP 91282CFC0
03/18 Cash PURCHASE 5,350,000.00000 US TREASURY 89.1731 -4,770,769.19 ACCRUED INT NOTES -7,093.92
CPN 1.500% DUE 02/15/30
DTD 02/15/20 FC 08/15/20
CUSIP 912828Z94
03/27 Cash PURCHASE 478,686.40000 FIDELITY FUNDS 1.0000 -478,686.40

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
03/31 Cash PURCHASE 96,762.44000 FIDELITY FUNDS 1.0000 -96,762.44

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
Total Securities purchased: -$10,401,775.02
072 ANCA ANC9
26

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Cash sweep activity
Our Cash Sweep program allows you to earn a return on the idle cash balances in your account by automatically investing such balances into one of our cash sweep options. These 'sweep transactions' may represent a net amount for the day and occur on settlement date. The following section displays transfers into and out of your sweep option. Transactions displayed here are Transfer To, Transfer From and Reinvested Dividends and Interest. These transaction amounts are not included in your cash flow summary.

DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 03/01 BEGINNING BALANCE 2,363.11 03/24 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 5,578.77

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/03 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 54,901.98 03/25 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 465,727.26

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/07 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 958.90 03/28 TRANSFER FROM ALLSPRING -726,836.88

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/11 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 220.55 03/31 REINVEST DIV ALLSPRING 0.10

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/12 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 5,702.74 03/31 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 902.65

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/18 TRANSFER TO ALLSPRING 9,752,560.10 03/31 ENDING BALANCE 902.75

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
03/19 TRANSFER FROM ALLSPRING -9,561,176.53

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET
Bank Deposits Through Teller March 1 - March 31
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Member FDIC) Account number Questions? Call us at 1-800-266-6263 Deposits made in a bank branch on the last business day of the month will typically appear on your next statement. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC is not an FDIC-insured depository institution; FDIC deposit insurance only protects against the failure of an insured depository institution. Banking products and services provided by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Member FDIC.

DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BANK BALANCE
03/01 BEGINNING BALANCE $0.00
072 ANCA ANC9
27

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Bank Deposits Through Teller continued

DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BANK BALANCE
03/31 ENDING BALANCE $0.00
Realized gain/loss
Realized Gain/Loss Summary

THIS PERIOD THIS PERIOD THIS PERIOD THIS YEAR THIS YEAR THIS YEAR

GAIN LOSS NET GAIN LOSS NET
Short term 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Long term 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Realized Gain/Loss $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Realized Gain/Loss Detail
Short term

ADJ PRICE/ DATE ADJ COST/

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ACQUIRED CLOSE DATE PROCEEDS ORIG COST GAIN/LOSS FIDELITY FUNDS 641.30000 1.0000 11/26/24 03/28/25 nc 641.30 641.30 0.00

FIDELITY TREASURY ONLY

PORT INSTL CLASS SHS
CUSIP 31607A802
Total Short term $641.30 $641.30 $0.00
nc Cost information for this tax lot is not covered by IRS reporting requirements. Unless indicated, cost for all other lots will be reported to the IRS. 072 ANCA ANC9
28

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Realized Gain/Loss Detail continued
Long term

ADJ PRICE/ DATE ADJ COST/

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ORIG PRICE ACQUIRED CLOSE DATE PROCEEDS ORIG COST GAIN/LOSS AMERICAN EXPR NATL BK CD 200,000.00000 100.0000 03/17/22 03/24/25 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.00 SALT LAKE CTY UT ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 2.050% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/22 FC 09/23/22
CUSIP 02589ABV3
US TREASURY 4,000,000.00000 100.0000 03/15/23 03/17/25 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.00

96.3546 3,854,194.52
NOTES
CPN 1.750% DUE 03/15/25
DTD 03/15/22 FC 09/15/22
CUSIP 91282CED9
5,330,000.00000 100.0000 08/10/23 03/17/25 5,330,000.00 5,330,000.00 0.00

95.3123 5,080,154.94
ALLY BANK CD 250,000.00000 100.0000 03/14/23 03/24/25 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 BENSALEM PA ACT/365

FDIC INSD
CPN 5.250% DUE 03/24/25
DTD 03/23/23 FC 09/23/23
CUSIP 02007GM34
Total Long term $9,780,000.00 $9,780,000.00 $0.00
$9,384,349.46
Specific instructions and disclosures
Available funds
"Available for loan" reflects the approximate amount available as of the statement period ending date and should be reduced by any pending checks and Visa charges not yet cleared. This amount is the approximate amount available for withdrawal and loans. A margin loan is a variable rate loan secured by your account.

Income on non-reportable accounts
Your income summary is categorized into taxable and tax-exempt income based upon the securities that you hold. Please be aware that, since this is a 1099 non-reportable account, this income will NOT be reported to the IRS, but is being provided to you for informational purposes only.

Callable Securities
Securities that are subject to a partial call will be selected by an impartial lottery process in which the probability of your securities being selected for redemption is proportional to the holdings of all shareholders of such securities held in street name. If a security is called prior to maturity it may affect the yield you receive. Additional information is available at www.wellsfargoadvisors.com under Legal Disclosures or the written procedures are available upon request. 072 ANCA ANC9
29

CITY OF MALIBU

RUTH QUINTO
MARCH 1, 2025 - MARCH 31, 2025
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Cost basis - To add or update information or modify your reporting options, please contact Your Financial Advisor.

This statement presents estimated unrealized or realized gains or losses for your information only. If acquisition or other information is not available, the gain/loss information may not be displayed and section and summary totals may not reflect your complete portfolio. Cost basis information is not verified by WFCS or Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network and should not be relied upon for legal or tax purposes. Revisions to this information (due to corporate mergers, tenders and other reorganizations) may be required from time to time.

Cost basis for factored bonds (GNMA, CMO, etc.) will be adjusted for paydown of principal. Systematic investments in mutual funds and reinvested dividends for mutual funds and stocks have been consolidated for each position. Unit cost data for systematic investments and dividend reinvestment securities is provided for informational purposes only and is a non-weighted average.

Your account statement should not be used for tax preparation without assistance from your tax consultant. We do not report capital gains or losses for non-covered securities to he IRS.

Cost basis options
Unless specific tax lots are selected at trade time, sales of tax lots will occur using the cost basis election reflected in the Account profile section.

Estimated accrued interest on Fixed Income securities
Estimated accrued interest is included in the Portfolio summary as a convenience to you and represents the estimated portion of he interest that would be received upon the sale of he Fixed Income posi ions in your account, calculated from the date of the last coupon (or dated date) through the date of the account statement, based upon information provided by the issuer. This is not a guarantee that this amount will be realized in your account. Actual income will be based upon the payout schedule of the securities held in your account. If you own a Foreign Fixed Income security, and it is denominated in a foreign currency, the Estimated accrued interest will not be accurate. 072 ANCA ANC9
30 *** THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ***
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54

Agenda Item # 1.B.9.

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: April 25, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Confirmation of the Director of Emergency Services Order Relating to the Palisades Fire Recovery
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Confirm the Order of the Director of Emergency Services dated April 25, 2025, directing law enforcement to set up and police resident-only access checkpoints at specified roads in response to the Palisades Fire recovery and extending the order through May 31, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is required. Potential costs include Los Angeles Sheriff’s resources.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the Public Safety and day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List. Responding to disasters such as the Palisades Fire and supporting community recovery is the City’s most immediate and top priority as part of the city's fundamental operations.

DISCUSSION: The Palisades Fire has had a devastating impact on Malibu, requiring significant coordination with multiple agencies, stakeholders, and community members to address recovery, preparedness, and safety concerns. An unfortunate outcome of the fire has been thefts from empty homes in evacuation zones. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has made a number of arrests.

To combat this sad trend, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-12-25 directing the California Highway Patrol (CHP), in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), to engage local law enforcement agencies to develop a plan for enforcing, and support them in enforcing, relevant state laws, including, but not limited to, Penal Code section 602 (prohibiting trespassing) and Penal Code section 647(h) (prohibiting loitering with intent to commit crimes of opportunity), and Chapter 9 of Division City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

1.B.9.

Agenda Item # 1.B.9.
11 of the Vehicle Code, as well as relevant local laws and ordinances, in areas previously subject to mandatory evacuation orders, in order to protect private property and minimize the impacts on ongoing recovery efforts.

Following the Executive Order and pursuant to his authority under Government Code Section 8634 and Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1), the City’s Director of Emergency Services issued the order (“Order”) on February 13, 2025. The Order directed law enforcement to set up and police resident-only access checkpoints at the following roads off Pacific Coast Highway:

1. Carbon Canyon

2. Rambla Vista (two entrances)

3. Rambla Pacifico

4. Las Flores

5. Big Rock

6. Tuna Canyon

7. Pena Road

8. Carbon Beach Terrace
The Order was confirmed by the City Council on February 24, 2025 and was in effect until February 28, 2025. Since the February 13, 2025 order, the California National Guard deployment has been extended several times. The City’s Director of Emergency Services issued orders extending the resident-only access order and these orders have been confirmed by the City Council. The most recent order extended the resident-only access order through April 30, 2025.

On April 22, 2025, it was confirmed that the California National Guard deployment was extended through the end of May.

On April 25, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services issued an order extending the resident-only access order through May 31, 2025.

Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1) requires the City Council to confirm the Order at the earliest practicable time. As todays’ meeting is the earliest practicable time for the City Council to act, it is recommended the Council confirm the Order.

ALTERNATIVES: Do not confirm the Director of Emergency Services Order and terminate the order.

ATTACHMENTS:

Director of Emergency Services Order, dated April 25, 2025 1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

FOR THE CITY OF MALIBU
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2025, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties due to fire and windstorm conditions that caused several fires including the Palisades Fire;
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2025, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency in response to the Palisades Fire, later ratified by the City Council; WHEREAS, an unfortunate outcome of the fire has been thefts from empty homes in evacuation zones for which the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has made a number of arrests; WHEREAS, on January 19, 2025, as part of fire recovery efforts, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-12-25 directing the California Highway Patrol, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, to engage local law enforcement agencies to develop a plan for enforcing, and support them in enforcing, relevant state laws, including, but not limited to, Penal Code section 602 (prohibiting trespassing) and Penal Code section 647(h) (prohibiting loitering with intent to commit crimes of opportunity), and Chapter 9 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, as well as relevant local laws and ordinances, in areas previously subject to mandatory evacuation orders, in order to protect private property and minimize the impacts on ongoing recovery efforts that may be caused by entry of large numbers of individuals who do not reside in these neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services issued an order directing law enforcement to set up and police resident-only access checkpoints at the following roads off Pacific Coast Highway (“Checkpoints”):

1. Carbon Canyon

2. Rambla Vista (two entrances)

3. Rambla Pacifico

4. Las Flores

5. Big Rock
Docusign Envelope ID: 011318F9-309C-4D47-B225-7823BF93701C 2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 6. Tuna Canyon

7. Pena Road

8. Carbon Beach Terrace
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the City Council confirmed the Order at the earliest practicable time, as required by Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1); WHEREAS, on February 28, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services extended the Order through March 14, 2025;
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, the City Council confirmed the extended Order at the earliest practicable time, as required by Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1); WHEREAS, on March 12, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services extended the order through March 28, 2025;
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the City Council confirmed the extended Order at the earliest practicable time, as required by Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1); WHEREAS, on March 28, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services extended the order through April 11, 2025;
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the City Council confirmed the extended Order at the earliest practicable time, as required by Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1); WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, the City’s Director of Emergency Services extended the order through April 30, 2025;
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2025, the City Council confirmed the extended Order at the earliest practicable time, as required by Malibu Municipal Code Section 2.52.060(A)(1); WHEREAS, recitals in the previous Orders not restated in this order are hereby incorporated by reference.

WHEREAS, the Order is set to expire on April 30, 2025 unless extended by the Director of Emergency Services;
WHEREAS, under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), LASD personnel and the California National Guard (CNG) remain actively engaged in a range of Docusign Envelope ID: 011318F9-309C-4D47-B225-7823BF93701C 3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 operations, including traffic control, home checks, humanitarian relief, looter suppression, and roving saturation security patrols;
WHEREAS, CNG soldiers are currently deployed at the Checkpoints and City has requested the CNG to extend their presence beyond the expiration of the Order to protect life and property from increased thefts of empty homes and other criminal activity spurred by the Palisades Fire; and WHEREAS, the CNG has approved extending its deployment through the end of May.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED by the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Malibu that the Order be extended through May 31, 2025. Any amendment to or rescission of this extension the Order shall be in writing and given widespread publicity and notice.

Dated:

Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Director of Emergency Services
City of Malibu
Approved as to Form:

Dated:

Trevor Rusin
Interim City Attorney
Docusign Envelope ID: 011318F9-309C-4D47-B225-7823BF93701C 4/25/2025
4/25/2025

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 9, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Updated Developer Fee Program for the Benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 25-15, adopting the updated developer fee for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (District) and rescinding Resolution No. 24-12.

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

The City delegates the authority of administering and collecting the Developer Fee to the District from new development projects. Fire rebuild projects are exempt from this fee.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: On February 12, 1991, during incorporation, the City of Malibu entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) establishing the Consolidated Fire Protection District (District). On July 12, 1990, prior to City incorporation, the Board adopted a resolution establishing the County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program for the benefit of the District. The Developer Fee Program (Program) was implemented August 1, 1990. The City has continued to remain in the District for essential fire protection and emergency medical services. Should Council choose to opt out of the District, the City will no longer receive these services and will be required to evaluate other options for funding and implementing fire and emergency medical services.

The purpose of the Developer Fee is to cover additional costs for construction of new fire stations and the purchase of necessary equipment. The District will only collect fees from new development projects. The Fire Department does not use these fees for responding to actual fire emergencies. Additionally, the Program does not fund mutual aid provided to agencies stricken by an emergency whenever resources are overwhelmed or inadequate; the fee would not apply to fire rebuild projects. The Program goal is City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

5.A.
1

generating funds for capital projects necessary to maintain fire protection services within the existing service areas of the District. This Program funds the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of fire station facilities in the high-growth, urban-expansion areas of the District.

The District conducts annual evaluations of the Program and makes appropriate recommendations through the Detailed Fire Station Plan. The Fire Station Plan reflects fire station requirements based upon the most current growth projections in three developer fee areas of benefit: 1) Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains, 2) Santa Clarita Valley, and 3) Antelope Valley. The 2023-2024 rate in the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains developer fee area of benefit was $1.1756 per square foot of new development. During 2023-2024, $448,450.16 in revenue fees was collected for Area of Benefit 1; of that total, new development fees within Malibu city limits were $115,057.06.

On February 25, 2025, the Board conducted a public hearing to update the Program, and adopted a rate increase of $0.0095, raising it to $1.1851 per square foot of new development. This rate reflects current costs associated with land acquisition, fire station construction, purchase of apparatus and equipment, and administration in each of the three areas. This updated rate will be effective May 1, 2025, in the unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 1.

Under the agreement between the City and the District, the City must adopt, by resolution, the new Developer Fee within 60 days of the Board adoption. Most recently, the Council adopted Resolution No. 24-12 which will be rescinded by the adoption of Resolution No. 25-15. For the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, staff is recommending remaining in the Consolidated Fire Protection District and the adoption of Resolution No. 25-15.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 25-15

2. Board of Supervisors Adoption Letter dated February 25, 2025

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Developer Fees Revenue – Area I: Fiscal Year 2023-2024 2 RESOLUTION NO. 25-15

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU ADOPTING THE UPDATED DEVELOPER FEE AND FIRE

STATION PROGRAM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSOLIDATED

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 24-12
The City Council of The City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On July 12, 1990, the board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles approved and adopted a County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (Developer Fee Program) in the Area of Benefit 1, Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains/Calabasas, 2, Santa Clarita Valley, and Area of Benefit 3, Antelope Valley (collectively “Areas of Benefit”) effective August 1, 1990, which is to be updated annually.

B. On February 12, 1991, during incorporation, the City of Malibu entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) establishing the Consolidated Fire Protection District (District).

C. On February 25, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted by resolution the updated Developer Fee Program in the Areas of Benefit for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, hereinafter referred to as “Developer Fee Program,” to fund land acquisition, fire station construction and facilities, apparatus, equipment, and administration necessary to deliver service to the City of Malibu, hereinafter referred to as “City.”
D. The City has received fire protection and emergency medical services from the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, hereinafter referred to as “District.”
E. The revenue available to the District is insufficient to acquire, construct, and operate fire stations to address fire protection and emergency medical services needs resulting from new development within the City.

F. The City’s fire protection requirements have been addressed by the County’s updated Capital Improvement Plan.

G. New development in the City will create substantial requirements on the District for expanded fire protection and emergency medical services.

Attachment 1
3 Resolution No. 25-15

______________________
H. The City desires to continue to receive an appropriate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to be provided by the District.

I. The City subscribes and endorses the regional concept of fire protection, which involves the District prioritizing the scheduling and placement of fire stations for the best interest of the City and the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains Developer Fee Area of Benefit 1, hereinafter referred to as “Area of Benefit 1.”
J. The City desires to assist and support the District in financing fire stations to address fire protection and emergency medical service requirements within the City that result from urban expansion and new development.

K. The continuation by the City of the Developer Fee Program would provide for the necessary new fire stations and apparatus required to deliver expanded fire protection and emergency services by new development within the City.

L. Residents of the City will benefit from the additional fire protection services provided by newly built fire stations funded by the Developer Fee Program within the Area of Benefit 1.

M. Government Code 66000, et seq., and Chapter 22.68 of the Los Angeles County Code regarding Developer Fee Program requirements have been met by the County.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Updated Developer Fee.

A. The updated Developer Fee Program in the Areas of Benefit for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County was adopted February 25, 2025, by the County of Los Angeles for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County and is approved and adopted by the City of Malibu.

B. The City of Malibu hereby delegates the authority of administering and collecting the Developer Fee within the territorial limits of the City of Malibu to the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County.

C. The updated Developer Fee Program will provide developer fee revenues from the Area of Benefit 1 to fund the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of facilities necessary for the District to deliver fire protection services in the area.
4 Resolution No. 25-15

______________________
D. Fire station and equipment costs to be funded by the updated Developer Fee Program will be based on a determination by the County of the required services provision. The Developer Fee Program amount will be modified annually by the County to reflect the actual costs for fire station development. The current Developer Fee Program amount of $1.1756 will increase by $0.0095 raising it to $1.1851 per square foot of new development. Terms and conditions for in-kind consideration will be addressed on an individual basis by the District.

E. The City will require that building permit issuances be withheld until proof that the Developer Fee Program obligation has been met by the applicant.

F. In the event the City annexes additional territory, the newly annexed territory shall be bound by the provisions as set forth in this resolution.

G. The City shall forward a copy of this adopted resolution to the Chief of the Planning Division for the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.

SECTION 3. Resolution No. 24-12 is hereby rescinded.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of __________ 2025.

________________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
5 ANTHONY C. MARRONE

FIRE CHIEF

FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
“Proud Protectors of Life,
the Environment, and Property”

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294
(323)881-2401
www.fire.lacounty.gov

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

KATHRYN BARGER, CHAIR

FIFTH DISTRICT
HILDA L. SOLIS

FIRST DISTRICT
HOLLY J. MITCHELL

SECOND DISTRICT
LINDSEY P. HORVATH

THIRD DISTRICT

JANICE HAHN

FOURTH DISTRICT
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:

AGOURA HILLS

ARTESIA
AZUSA

BALDWIN PARK
BELL

BELL GARDENS

BELLFLOWER

BRADBURY

CALABASAS
CARSON

CERRITOS

CLAREMONT

COMMERCE
COVINA
CUDAHY

DIAMOND BAR
DUARTE

EL MONTE

GARDENA

GLENDORA

HAWAIIAN GARDENS

HAWTHORNE

HERMOSA BEACH

HIDDEN HILLS

HUNTINGTON PARK

INDUSTRY

INGLEWOOD

IRWINDALE

LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE

LA HABRA

LA MIRADA

LA PUENTE

LAKEWOOD

LANCASTER

LAWNDALE
LOMITA

LYNWOOD
MALIBU

MAYWOOD

NORWALK

PALMDALE

PALOS VERDES ESTATES

PARAMOUNT

PICO RIVERA
POMONA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES

ROLLING HILLS

ROLLING HILLS ESTATES

ROSEMEAD

SAN DIMAS

SANTA CLARITA

SIGNAL HILL

SOUTH EL MONTE

SOUTH GATE

TEMPLE CITY
VERNON
WALNUT

WEST HOLLYWOOD

WESTLAKE VILLAGE

WHITTIER
February 25, 2025
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Supervisors:

APPROVE AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION

TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE CONSOLIDATED

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
(3RD AND 5TH DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES)

SUBJECT
The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (District) has completed its annual review of the Developer Fee Program (DFP) and is making recommendations to increase the DFP rates in the three Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD, AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING:

Acting as the governing body of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, is recommended that your Board:

1. Approve and adopt the enclosed Resolution and the 2024 DFP rate increase for the three Areas of Benefit, Area 1 (Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains/City of Calabasas):
$1.1851 (+$0.0095) per square foot; Area 2 (Santa Clarita Valley): $1.6710 (+$0.0534) per square foot; and Area 3 (Antelope Valley): $1.1407 (+$0.0127) per square foot.

2. Find that updating the DFP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) in that it involves the collection of fees for capital projects necessary to maintain services within the Areas of Benefit. 3 February 25, 2025
Attachment 2
6 The Honorable Board of Supervisors
February 25, 2025

PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
On July 12, 1990, your Honorable Board adopted a resolution establishing a County of Los Angeles DFP for the District. The DFP was implemented August 1, 1990, to fund the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of fire station facilities in the highgrowth, urban-expansion areas of the District. The purpose of this program, as adopted by the Board, is to ensure these additional resources are made available to protect the lives of residents and maintain efficient fire protection and life-safety services in the Areas of Benefit where population is increasing based on urban expansion. The Developer Fee rate increase enables the District to fully fund the development of new fire stations using a cost component that utilizes the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) due to the rate of inflation that impacts the costs of construction, land, and equipment. Pursuant to Government Codes 66001 and 66002, the resolution instructs the District to conduct annual evaluations of the DFP and make appropriate recommendations to your Honorable Board.

Additionally, on September 4, 2007, your Honorable Board adopted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Calabasas wherein the parties agreed to exercise the power to levy the DFP in the City of Calabasas and the City Council authorized your Honorable Board to conduct all proceedings in connection with the levy of the fee, and any modifications of the fee amount, within the city boundaries.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Approval of the recommended actions is consistent with the County’s Strategic Plan North Star Focus Area Goal A, Strategies i: Customer Service: Support departmental efforts to improve customer service and to enhance efficiency and responsiveness to meet the needs of all residents.

FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
The District is funded independently from the County’s General Fund and relies primarily on property tax revenue to provide essential fire protection and emergency medical services.

The DFP provides an additional revenue source to fund essential fire station facilities and equipment in the areas of urban growth. Increasing the fee rates in the unincorporated areas of the three Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas will enable the District to fund the development of new fire stations proportionate to the need necessitated by growth.

The DFP generates approximately $3.8 million in revenue annually and subject to change based on variability in the construction of homes and land acquisition in the Areas of Benefit.

These funds are deposited into the District’s Developer Fee Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund and can only be used to fund the development of new fire stations within specific geographic areas.

There is no impact to net County cost.
7 The Honorable Board of Supervisors
February 25, 2025

FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66000, 66001, 66002, 66006, and 66018, the District has prepared three enclosures to the Resolution. Enclosure A, Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan to the Resolution depicts the status of completed and proposed fire stations, and helispots, as well as, costs, and funding sources. Enclosure B, Developer Fee for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County Developer Fee Funds 2023-24 Fiscal Year (FY)-End Report, identifies the beginning DFP Fund balance for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25, including variances due to interest, advertisement, refunds, etc. Enclosure C, Developer Fee for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County 2024 Developer Fee Calculation Summary, breaks down the cost and finance (Area 2) associated with the construction of a fire station, purchase of apparatus, and administration cost. These costs are necessary to finalize the new DFP rate for the respective Areas of Benefit.

County Counsel has approved as to form the attached Resolution updating the DFP.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This project is statutorily exempt per Section 15273 (a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines developed by the State Office of Planning Research in that it involves the collection of fees for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas.

IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS)
The updated rates will be imposed in the unincorporated areas in the three DFP Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas effective May 1, 2025. As a result, the updated Developer Fee rates will be imposed in the cities of Malibu, Santa Clarita, and Lancaster upon adoption of a resolution updating the fee amounts by each respective city.

CONCLUSION
Upon conclusion of the public hearing and approval by your Honorable Board, please instruct the Executive Officer to return an adopted stamped copy of this letter with the adopted Resolution to the following office:

Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County Marcia Velasquez, Head of Planning and Executive Support 1320 N. Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063
[email protected]
The District’s contact can be reached at (213) 466-5596. 8 The Honorable Board of Supervisors
February 25, 2025

Respectfully submitted,
ANTHONY C. MARRONE, FIRE CHIEF
ACM:mb
Enclosures
c: Chief Executive Officer
County Counsel
Auditor-Controller
9 ENCLOSURE A

DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
OCTOBER 2024
10 Fire Station/Location In most cases a site has not yet been acquired; the locations are therefore approximate.

Anticipated Capital ∙ Project Costs
∙ Apparatus cost includes the full cost of the apparatus as well as outfitting and equipment costs. ∙ No District overhead costs nor an inflation factor have been applied; all figures are based on current costs.∙ Project Cost Estimate
Amount Budgeted
Equipment and StaffingFiscal Year The Fiscal Year period begins July 1 and ends June 30.

Initiating Priority Year Refers to the fiscal year that the land acquisition or construction of the fire station is anticipated to begin.Target Occupancy Target occupancy is approximately one to two years from the actual start of construction Where actual costs are not yet available, the anticipated capital projects costs are based upon the District's current cost experienced for construction, land and equipment.Developer Fee credit may be granted for the conveyance of a site, apparatus, or construction of a fire station to help offset the impact of development on the District.

Based on average costs for fire stations recently completed and stations under development; includes plans, specifications, consultant services, plan check, permit and inspection fees, construction, project management, furnishings, and equipment.The amount budgeted could be from Developer Fee funds collected or advanced from District general revenues or certificates of participation. All advances made and/or interest incurred by the District to finance station development are to be repaid when Developer Fee revenues are sufficient. If no amount is budgeted, the development of the fire station may be delayed until Developer Fee revenues are sufficient to fund the site acquisition and/or construction of the fire station.This plan reflects the proposed staffing and equipment to be implemented when each station and the development served by each station are built out in the respective areas of benefit. In many instances, a transitional staffing confirguration will be utilized until build out occurs.

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
This Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan (Plan) reflects the Consolidated Fire Protection District's (District) fire service requirements as of October 2024 based upon growth projections and contacts with cities and developers who have shared their development plans with the District.The Plan identifies 6 completed fire stations, 18 proposed fire stations, 1 expansion station, 4 helispots, and the necessary capital equipment that will be required in the Areas of Benefit as well as the anticipated costs and time frames provided that development occurs as expected. The anticipated costs identified in the Plan will be funded by Developer Fee revenues or funds which the District has advanced from other sources. These advances will be repaid to the District when sufficient Developer Fee revenue is generated.

Terms Used in Plan Explanation
Fiscal Year 2024-25

PREFACE

11 STATIONS OPERATIONAL: REIMBURSEMENT PENDING & IN-PROGRESS* Station Size, Equip.

Facility Funding Source* and Staffing Comments
Fire Station 128 Station Development Costs 9,066,972 $ Commercial Paper 9,976 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by Shappell Industries 28450 Whites Canyon Rd. **Principal Paid (945,000) Proceeds Engine for developer fee credit. Partial funding totalling $3.6 million was Santa Clarita (City) Balance 8,121,972 $ provided by the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act.

The fire station was completed and operational March 1, 2012.

Fire Station 132 Station Development Costs 8,127,873 $ Commercial Paper 9,746 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by K. HovnanianWes Thompson Ranch **Principal Paid (1,515,000) Proceeds Engine (VTTM 49621). Apparatus for this permanent station was 29310 Sand Canyon. Rd. Balance 6,612,873 $ transferred from temporary Fire Station 132. The permanentSanta Clarita (City) station was completed and operational March 12, 2012.

Fire Station 143 Station Development Costs 7,913,986 $ Commercial Paper 9,700 sq. ft. The land was conveyed by the developer, Newhall Land and 28580 Hasley Canyon Rd Principal Paid (380,000) Proceeds Engine Farming, for developer fee credit. The fire station was completedSanta Clarita Valley Balance 7,533,986 $ and operational in November 2016. (Unincorporated)Fire Station 150 Station Development Costs 11,483,583 $ Commercial Paper 19,935 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District by Pardee Homes for 19190 Golden Valley Rd. Prinicipal Paid (2,360,000) Proceeds Haz. Mat. Task Force developer fee credit. A Hazardous Materials Task Force Santa Clarita (City) Balance 9,123,583 $ (Engine and Squad) assigned to Fire Station 76 was reassigned to staff this station.

BC/AC HQ The fire station was completed and operational Feb. 1, 2013.

Fire Station 156 Station Development Costs 7,512,226 $ Commercial Paper 11,152 sq. ft. The site was conveyed to the District from Newhall Land and24505 Copper Hill Drive Prinicipal Paid (1,395,000) Proceeds Engine Farming for developer fee credit. Apparatus was transferredRye Canyon Area Balance 6,117,226 $ from temporary Fire Station 156. The station was completed and Santa Clarita (City) operational in 2011.

Fire Station 104 $ $234,000 11,450 sq. ft. 13,247,645 This station replaces temporary Fire Station 104. The land was 26901 Golden Valley Road Principal Paid $ 100% Commercial (315,000) Engine purchased by the District in Dec. 2010 and the station was completed (at Soledad Canyon) 1,191,053 Paper Proceeds in 2020.Santa Clarita (City) Total 14,123,698 $ Project cost est.

Apparatus

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Capital Project Costs
Fiscal Year 2024-25
*The District is financing costs that exceed the developer fee funds available within Area 2. The District will be reimbursed the costs it advanced, including interest and, administrativecharges from Area 2 as revenues are collected and from the City of Santa Clarita for the City's proportionate share of fire station facilities financing.**Based on Bond Debt Service provided by Financial Management Division, cumulative principal cost.

12 EXPANSION FACILITY:

Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility and Equipment
Fire Station 33 Expansion Land $ - This Fire Station will be removed from future Station Plans. 44947 Date Ave. Project cost est. $ -Lancaster Apparatus $ - (Unincorporated)
Total $ -
LAND ACQUISITION ONLY:

Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility and Equipment
Fire Station O (formerly 138) Land $ 361,548 10,000 The City of Palmdale expressed interest in assisting with site acquisition. The Avenue S and Tierra Subida Project cost est.* $ 10,358,600 District will pursue City participation, however, fire station development will not (Unincorporated Palmdale Area) Total $ 10,720,148 commence until development in the area warrants additional coverage.

Fire Station P (formerly 195) Land $ 361,548 10,000 The City of Palmdale expressed interest in assisting with site acquisition. In addition, Pearblossom Hwy/47th St. E. Project cost est.* $ 10,358,600 there is a proposed development project within this location for which the Fire District (Unincorporated Palmdale Area) may negotiate a station site. Fire station development will not commence until Total $ 10,720,148 development in the area warrants additional coverage.

Capital Project Costs Comments/Status
Early land acquisition will ensure that the future fire stations will be optimally placed when these areas develop in the future. The progress of development in these areas will be monitored for timing of the future construction of these stations:

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Capital Project Costs
AnticipatedAnticipated
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Comments/Status

13 PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS
Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility and Equipment Comments/Status
Fire Station 46 (formerly 177) Land - 13,500 Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for the Newhall Ranch Project cost est.* 13,984,110 Engine (2) Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in the Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 3,146,474 Squad Mission Village. Newhall will also construct a smaller auxiliary building Total $ 17,130,584 on the same site of the Fire Station. (Tract No. 61105) Fire Station 113 (formerly 175) Land $ - 9,800 Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for the Newhall Ranch Project cost est.* 10,151,428 Engine Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in the Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,805,445 Squad Landmark Village. (Tract No. 53108) Total $ 11,956,873
Fire Station 109 (formerly 176) Land - $ 9,800 Newhall Land to construct and equip according to an MOU for the Newhall Ranch Project cost est.* 10,151,428 Engine Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area. This station will be located in Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029 Portrero/Homestead. (Tract No. 60678) Total $ 11,492,457
Fire Station A (formerly 179) Land $ - 10,000 The fire station site was reevaluated and is no longer required. This fire station will Lyons Ranch Project cost est.* 10,358,600 Engine be removed from future Station Plans.

Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029 Total $ 11,699,629
Fire Station B (formerly 109) Land $ 361,548 10,000 Fire station development will not begin until development in the area warrants Fox Field - vicinity of 40th St. W Station Dev. Costs* 10,358,600 Engine additional coverage. and Avenue G Apparatus 1,341,029
City of Lancaster (City) Total 12,061,177 $
Fire Station C (formerly 113) Land $ - 10,000 The developer is to provide a site within the Avanti South Project area to Avanti South Project Station Dev. Costs* 10,358,600 Engine the District for developer fee credits. (Tract No. 74312)70th Street West and Ave. K-8 Apparatus 1,341,029 City of Lancaster (City) Total 11,699,629 $
Fire Station D (formerly 133) Land $ 4,190,456 10,000 Agreement with developer, City of Santa Clarita for the site executed on Needham Ranch Parkwy Project cost est.* 10,858,600 ** Engine 9/9/2019. The site was conveyed to District by Needham Ranch for near Eternal Valley Mem. Park Apparatus 1,341,029 developer fee credit. (Tract No. 50283) Santa Clarita (City) Total 16,390,085 $ (Helispot) Helispot is completed and station construction will commence when significant development in the vicinity occurs.

Capital Project Costs

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2024-25
*Based on an average cost per square foot of $1,035.86.**Additional $500,000 added for cost of helispot preparation costs. ***Cost will be updated once project start date has been established.

14 PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS
Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility Capital Project Costs and Equipment Comments/Status

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Fire Station E (formerly 600) Land $ - 10,000 The developer, Pardee Homes, is to convey a station site to the Valley Cyn. Road at Spring Canyon Project cost est.* 10,358,600 Engine District for developer fee credits (Tract No. 48086) Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029 Total $ 11,699,629
Fire Station F (formerly 174) Land $ 361,548 4,982 Fire station development will not begin until development in the area warrants Neenach Fire Station Project cost est.* 5,160,655 Engine additional coverage.

Antelope Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029
Total $ 6,863,232
Fire Station G (formerly 142) Fire Station $ 1,365,288 10,000 Fire station development will not begin until development in the area warrantsSierra Highway/Clanfield Project cost est.* 10,858,600 ** Engine additional coverage.

Antelope Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029 (Helispot) Total $ 13,564,917 Fire Station H (formerly 139) Land $ *** - 10,000 Per the developer agreement for the Anaverde/City Ranch Project, the Anaverde/City Ranch Project cost est. - *** Engine developer is required to provide land and construct a permanent firePalmdale (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 station to be conveyed to the District.

Total 1,341,029 $
Fire Station I (formerly 190) Land $ *** - 10,000 Under a 1992 developer agreement for the Ritter Ranch Project, the Ritter Ranch Project cost est. - *** Engine developer is required to provide land and construct a permanent firePalmdale (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 station to be conveyed to the District.

Total 1,341,029 $
Fire Station J (formerly Northlake/180) Land $ 1,306,800 10,000 Developer to construct the proposed project R2018-00408-(5) with a future North of Lake Hughes, East of I-5, West Project cost est.* 10,358,600 Engine fire station to be built as part of Phase 2 in future. FS is expected to have a of Castaic Lake Apparatus 1,341,029 1.4 acre pad. (Tract No. 73336) Castaic Canyon (Unincorporated) Total $ 13,006,429
*Based on an average cost per square foot of $1,035.86.**Additional $500,000 added for cost of helispot preparation costs.***Cost will be updated once project start date has been established.

15 PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS
Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility Capital Project Costs and Equipment Comments/Status

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Anticipated
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Centennial Fire Station K Land - $ *** 13,000 Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement withCentennial Project Project cost est. - *** Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total 1,341,029 $ Project.

Centennial Fire Station L Land - $ *** 10,000 Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement with Centennial Project Project cost est. - *** Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total 1,341,029 $ Project.

Centennial Fire Station M Land - $ *** 10,000 Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement with Centennial Project Project cost est. - *** Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total 1,341,029 $ Project.

Centennial Fire Station N Land - $ *** 10,000 Developer to enter into a Development Impact Mitigation Agreement with Centennial Project Project cost est. - *** Engine the District to construct and equip up to four fire stations, as Gorman (City) Apparatus 1,341,029 determined by the District, to serve the Centennial Development Total $ 1,341,029 Project.

Fire Station TBD Land $ 1,306,800 10,000 Development in this area is limited at this time and construction East Calabasas area between Project cost est.* 10,358,600 Engine will not commence until substantial development occurs. Stations 68 and 69 Apparatus 1,341,029 Total $ 13,006,429
Fing\Developer Fee\2023-24 Update\2023 Five Year Plan Update.xls *Based on an average cost per square foot of $1,035.86.**Additional $500,000 added for cost of helispot preparation costs.***Cost will be updated once project start date has been established.

16 HELISPOTS:

Station Size (Sq. Ft.)
Facility and Equipment Comments/Status
Completed HelispotFire Station D (formerly 133) Land $ 4,190,456 10,000 Agreement with developer, City of Santa Clarita for the site executed on Needham Ranch Parkwy Project cost est.* 10,868,600 ** Engine 9/9/2019. The site was conveyed to District by Needham Ranch for near Eternal Valley Mem. Park Apparatus 1,341,029 developer fee credit. (Tract No. 50283) Santa Clarita (City) Total 16,400,085 $
Helispot is completed and station construction delayed until development in the area warrants additional coverage needed.

Proposed HelispotFire Station G (formerly 142) Land $ 1,365,288 10,000 The land was acquired by the District in July 2010. A Sierra Highway/Clanfield Project cost est.* 10,868,600 ** Engine helispot is planned to be constructed at this station site.

Antelope Valley (Unincorporated) Apparatus 1,341,029
Total 13,574,917 $
Val Verde Land - $ The District has requested that a helispot be provided within the Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Helispot 590,000 Val Verde Development Project. (Tract No. 60665) Apparatus
Total $ 590,000
Tesoro Land $ - The District has requested that a helispot be provided within the Santa Clarita Valley (Unincorporated) Helispot 590,000 Tesoro Del Valle Development Project. (Tract No. 51644) Apparatus
Total 590,000 $
*Based on an average cost per square foot of $1,035.86.**Additional $500,000 added for cost of helispot preparation costs.

DEVELOPER FEE DETAILED FIRE STATION PLAN
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Anticipated
Capital Project Costs

17 ENCLOSURE B
Area of Benefit 1 Area of Benefit 2 Area of Benefit 3
Malibu/Santa Monica Mtns. (a) Santa Clarita Valley (b) Antelope Valley (c) City of Calabasas
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Beginning Balance $5,550,551.26 $14,312,453.27 $32,910,933.48 Total Developer Fee Revenue Collected (d) 448,450.16 9,971,482.48 1,760,912.69 Interest Earned 203,104.45 683,827.33 1,199,519.04
Adjustment (3,642.05) (2,325,112.50) (h) -
Fund Expenditures (Advertisement) (46.77) (46.77) (46.77) NSF Checks - - -
Refunds - - -
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Ending Balance $6,198,417.05 (e) $22,642,603.81 (f) $35,871,318.44 (g) (a) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 1 and the Cities of Calabasas and Malibu. (b) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 2 and the City of Santa Clarita. (c) Includes unincorporated areas within Area of Benefit 3 and the City of Lancaster. (d) The developer fee rates during FY 2023-24 were as follows:

Area 1 = 1.1756
Area 2 = 1.6176
Area 3 = 1.1280
(h) Adjustment includes two (2) Type I pumpers and one (1) paramedic squad. (g) Funds to be used for land acquisition for Fire Stations 138 and 195 in the unincorporated Palmdale area, and and financing of fire stations 128, 132, 143, 150, and 156. construction of additional stations as detailed in the 2024 Fire Station Plan update.

DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEVELOPER FEE FUNDS
2023-24 FISCAL YEAR-END REPORT
(e) Funds to be used to develop a fire station in the East Calabasas area when development in the area warrants additional coverage needed. (f) Funds used to fund the construction of permanent Fire Station 104 and to reimburse the District for the costs incurred in the development 18 ENCLOSURE C
Proportionate Proportionate Proportionate
Developer Fee 2024 Fire Station 2024 Cost 2024 Fire Station 2024 Cost 2024 Fire Station 2024 Cost Cost Component Cost Share Applied Cost Share Applied Cost Share Applied Average Land Cost $ 1,306,800 100.00% $ 1,306,800 $ 1,646,568 100.00% $ 1,646,568 $ 361,548 100.00% $ 361,548 Station Development Costs $ 10,358,600 100.00% $ 10,358,600 $ 10,726,331 100.00% $ 10,726,331 $ 10,726,331 100.00% $ 10,726,331 Financing Costs N/A - - $ 23,810,495 20.00% $ 4,762,099 N/A - - Engine Cost $ 1,341,029 100.00% $ 1,341,029 $ 1,341,029 100.00% $ 1,341,029 $ 1,341,029 100.00% $ 1,341,029 Quint Cost $ 2,509,465 20.95% $ 525,733 $ 2,509,465 20.95% $ 525,733 $ 2,509,465 20.95% $ 525,733 Squad Cost $ 464,416 32.80% $ 152,328 $ 464,416 32.80% $ 152,328 $ 464,416 32.80% $ 152,328 Total Cost Per Station $ 13,684,490 Total Cost Per Station $ 19,154,088 Total Cost Per Station $ 13,106,969 Administrative Costs $ 102,395 Administrative Costs $ 285,369 Administrative Costs $ 163,392 Total Area 1 Costs $ 13,786,885 Total Area 2 Costs $ 19,439,457 Total Area 3 Costs $ 13,270,361 Total Square Feet of Total Square Feet of Total Square Feet of Development per Station 11,633,307 Development per Station 11,633,307 Development per Station 11,633,307 Developer Fee Amount Developer Fee Amount Developer Fee Amount Per Square Foot $ 1.1851 Per Square Foot $ 1.6710 Per Square Foot $ 1.1407 Note: The calculated costs for the apparatus listed above (Engine, Quint, Squad) are inclusive of the base unit purchase price plus outfitting, equipment, and communications costs.

CITY OF CALABASAS
MALIBU/SANTA MONICA MTNS., SANTA CLARITA VALLEY ANTELOPE VALLEY

DEVELOPER FEE FOR THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2024 DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATION SUMMARY
AREA OF BENEFIT 1 - AREA OF BENEFIT 2 - AREA OF BENEFIT 3 - 19 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO UPDATE THE

DEVELOPER FEE PROGRAM FOR THE BENEFIT OF

THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND TO CONSIDER THE DEVELOPER FEE FUNDS 2023-24 FISCAL YEAR-END REPORT
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1990, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles approved and adopted a County of Los Angeles Developer Fee Program (DFP) for the benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (District) in Area of Benefit 1, Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains, Area of Benefit 2, Santa Clarita Valley, and Area of Benefit 3, Antelope Valley (collectively, "Areas of Benefit") effective August 1, 1990, which DFP is to be updated annually thereafter; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2007, the City of Calabasas, located in the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains Area of Benefit, and the City Council of the City of Calabasas entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Los Angeles in which the City and County jointly agreed to exercise the power to levy the DFP in the City and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to conduct all proceedings in connection with the levy of fees and modifications of the fee amount within the City; and WHEREAS, the District desires to update the DFP rate in the three Areas of Benefit, in accordance with Government Code Section 66002; and WHEREAS, the rate increase is due to proposed developments in areas which are designated in the Los Angeles County General Plan as high-growth areas and require fire protection resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the District, resolves, finds, and determines that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The DFP is for the purpose of generating funds for capital projects necessary to maintain fire protection services within the existing service areas of the District, and is statutorily exempt per Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines developed by the State Office of Planning and Research.

3. On February 25, 2025, a public hearing was held to update and consider:

Attachment A, the Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan dated October 2024 attached hereto and incorporated herein, which serves as the DFP capital improvement plan and describes the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of fire stations to be funded with developer fee revenue; Attachment B, Developer Fee for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County Developer Fee Funds 2023-24 Fiscal Year-End Report; and Attachment C, Developer Fee for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County 2024 Developer Fee Calculation Summary attached hereto and incorporated herein, which imposes a separate fee calculation for each Area of Benefit based upon the actual fire station development costs experienced in each of the three areas;
20 4. The Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the District, approves and adopts the updated DFP in the Areas of Benefit of the District as follows:
a. The updated DFP Detailed Fire Station Plan dated October 2024 is approved.
b. The DFP Funds 2023-24 Fiscal Year-End Report is approved. c. The updated DFP rates per square foot of new developments of $1.1851 in Area of Benefit 1 and the City of Calabasas, $1.6710 in Area of Benefit 2, and $1.1407 in Area of Benefit 3 are approved and shall become effective in the unincorporated areas within Areas of Benefit and the City of Calabasas on May 1, 2025.
d. The 2024 DFP Calculation Summary is approved.
e. All other terms and provisions of the DFP as previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

The foregoing resolution was adopted on the ________ day of _____________, 20__, by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

EDWARD YEN, Executive Officer
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By __________________________
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAWYN HARRISON, COUNTY COUNSEL
By ________________________________
Senior Deputy County Counsel
f\Planning\developer fee\2023-24 Update\2023 Developer Fee update Resolution Jenny Tam
Digitally signed by Jenny
Tam
Date: 2025.02.19
08:42:39 -08'00'
25th February 25
21 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, April 28, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, to consider:

Updated Developer Fee Program for the Benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County
Under the Developer Fee Agreement between the Consolidated Fire Protection District and the City, the City must adopt an updated Developer Fee Program. If adopted, the Resolution would increase the current developer fee amount of $1.1756 per square foot by $0.0095 raising it to $1.1851 to reflect current costs associated with land acquisition, fire station construction, purchase of apparatus and equipment, and administration.

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.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Environmental Sustainability Director Bundy at (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. 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. _______________________________
Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director
Publish Date: April 17, 2025 and April 24, 2025
Attachment 3
22 Developer Fee
Area 1
Malibu/Santa Monica
FY 2023/2024
Months Collections ADJ P/E Interest Refunds NSF Expenditures Grand Total Beginning Balance 10,489,250.40 - 767,731.72 (56,198.12) (6,111.61) (5,644,121.13) 5,550,551.26 July 2023 2,021.68 (4,198.78) 19,059.59 16,882.49
August 2023 71,912.73 16,129.56 88,042.29
September 2023 25,377.79 14,822.42 40,200.21
October 2023 4,944.15 697.73 15,412.49 21,054.37
November 2023 256,450.42 21,160.86 277,611.28
December 2023 5,882.39 15,274.69 21,157.08
January 2024 14,538.62 9,161.67 23,700.29
February 2024 132.74 16,123.67 16,256.41
March 2024 39,412.53 13,975.50 53,388.03
April 2024 8,588.97 18,870.90 27,459.87
May 2024 17,052.08 (141.00) 20,624.99 37,536.07
June 2024 2,136.06 22,488.11 (46.77) 24,577.40
23/24 13th Period - - -
Total 448,450.16 (3,642.05) 203,104.45 - - (46.77) 647,865.79 Ending Balance 10,937,700.56 (3,642.05) 970,836.17 (56,198.12) (6,111.61) (5,644,167.90) 6,198,417.05 AS OF 13th PERIOD, 2024
Attachment 4
23 AREA DP NO DP DATE BILLING CONTACT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL

PAYMENT FOOTNOTE
1 SWP24002175 07/27/23 SUSAN VILLAIN/VUE VENTURES 6453 ZUMA VIEW PLACE 121 MALIBU 2,021.68 2105 NEWELL ROAD MALIBU CA 90265 1 SWP24003156 08/07/23 MARNY RANDALL 909 EUCLID STREET SANTA MONICA $6,428.08 23325 MALIBU COLONY ROAD, MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24003822 08/14/23 DOMENIC MASTRIPPOLITO 7058 FERNHILL DR MALIBU $1,355.73 7058 FERNHILL DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24003963 08/15/23 LEE JUBAS/LEE JUBAS ARCHITECS 304 S BROADWAY 2ND FLOOR LOS ANGELES $3,240.13 30125 HARVESTER ROAD MALIBU, CA 90266 1 SWP24005155 08/28/23 JOSEPH LEZAMA/FORMATIVECA 11041 SANTA MONICA BLVD 409 LOS ANGELES $12,620.18 5024 CARBON BEACH TERRACE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24004355 08/18/23

SHWETA BARDE/MALIBU DESIGN
CENTER 25001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MAILBU $4,626.49 24132 MALIBU ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24005296 08/29/23

JEFFREY BROWNING/SAA
ARCHITECTURE & INTERIORS, INC. 6083 BRISTOL PARKWAY CULVER CITY $1,427.20 3442 CLOUDCROFT DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24005296 08/29/23 KEVIN ARAMBULA/PHENARCH 236 S LOS ANGLES ST B322 B322 LOS ANGELES $5,993.56 5809 TRANCAS CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24005423 08/30/23

DUSTIN WOOMER/JONATHAN
CHRISTIE/DIAMOND WEST, INC. 23801 CALABASAS ROAD SUITE 1034 CALABASAS $10,046.00 26719 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24005555 08/31/23 SUSAN VILLAIN/VUE VENTURES 6453 ZUMA VIEW PLACE 121 MALIBU $9,490.09 6333 SEASTAR DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24005017 08/25/23 HIREN PATEL/HP DESIGNS 3940 CALLE DEL SOL THOUSAND OAKS $913.27 2140 E LAKE SHORE DRIVE AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 1 SWP24006381 09/11/23 CHARLES SANTOS/SANTOS PLANNING 5707 CROSS AVENUE SUITE 202 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 11,232.68 30544 MORING VIEW DRIVE MALIBU, CA ONLINE DEVELOPER FEE PAYMENTS FY23-24
\\vfsshare01\fmd\RM\General AR\GenARRecUnit\DeveloperFee\FY2324\Developer Fee Area 1 packet\Developer Fee Area 1 spreadsheet for Gina 1 of 5 24 AREA DP NO DP DATE BILLING CONTACT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL

PAYMENT FOOTNOTE
ONLINE DEVELOPER FEE PAYMENTS FY23-24
1 SWP24006920 09/15/23 ELIZABETH BLISS/WINDSOR 6061 SW KANAN DURME ROAD MALIBU 5,920.96 29652 CUTHBERT ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24008265 09/29/23

ALA GUILLEN/OASYS BUILDING
TECHNOLOGY 1246 2ND STREET LOS ANGELES 1,021.05 27567 WINDING WAY MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24009111 10/10/23 VANA SARKISIAN 3401 OCEAN VIEW BLVD. GLENDALE 2,720.53 6626 WANDERMERE ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24010226 10/20/23 DAVID ERSKINE 5372 LKE LINDERO CALABASAS 2,223.62 2200 COLD CANYON ROAD CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24011872 11/07/23

CINDY REYES/PACIFIC CREST
CONSULTANTS 29635 AGOURA RD AGOURA HILLS $21,118.72 3011 MALIBU CANYON ROAD MAILIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24011994 11/08/23

MICHAEL BEHAR BRISON/MBB DESIGN
STUDIO 22231 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY CALABASAS $1,048.28 25314 PRADO DE NARANJA CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24012282 11/12/23 JIAN KEREND 1756 BARRY AVENUE LOS ANGELES $916.68 5169 GARRETT COURT CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 OTC01701 11/17/23 MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN RAHMATI 3650 GOLDEN LEAF DR. WEST LAKE VLG $6,936.66 N/A 1 SWP24013032 11/20/23 CRAIG JOHNSON 7789 JENNA DRICE GOLETA $1,469.18 29061 LAKE DRIVE MALIBU 1 SWP240131666 11/21/23

MAHMOUD MORTAZAVI/DREAM HOME
DESIGN 20600
VENTURA BOULEVARD 2355
2355 WOODLAND HILLS $6,108.15 22534 CALIPATRIA DRIVE CALABASAS, CA91302 1 SWP24013557 11/27/23

PETER HAMILTON/STUDIO PETER
HAMILTON 210 25TH STREET SANTA MONICA $6,239.75 29903 HARVESTER ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24013900 11/30/23 SUSAN VILLAIN/VUE VENTURES 6453 ZUMA VIEW PLACE 121 MALIBU $1,701.75 29659 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 \\vfsshare01\fmd\RM\General AR\GenARRecUnit\DeveloperFee\FY2324\Developer Fee Area 1 packet\Developer Fee Area 1 spreadsheet for Gina 2 of 5 25 AREA DP NO DP DATE BILLING CONTACT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL

PAYMENT FOOTNOTE
ONLINE DEVELOPER FEE PAYMENTS FY23-24
1 SWP24014730 12/08/23 BRANDON DICKER 23945 CALABASAS ROAD SUITE 101 CALABASAS 873.57 29924 HAVESTER ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24015412 12/15/23 BRANDON DICKER 23945 CALABASAS ROAD 101 CALABASAS 4,738.81 25045 JIM BRIDGER ROAD CALABASAS, CA91302 1 SWP24016634 12/29/23 ESTHER DRPRI/ED DESIGN 23035 LEONORA DRIVE WOODLAND HILLS 270.01 950 LATIGO CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24017177 01/05/24 PILAR MUTUC 20720 VENTURA BOULEVARD WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 1,361.40 23736 PARK MADRID CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24017859 01/12/24 MAHYAR NOURIKALOURI 2518 CARDIGAN CT LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 6,539.26 28916 WIGHT ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24019106 01/26/24 CHRIS OROSZ/CITY OF MALIBU 23825 STUART RANCH RD. ROAD N MALIBU, CA90265 363.04 2577 ENCINAL CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24019106 01/26/24 ARFAKHASHED MUNAIM 28118 AGOURA ROAD 103 AGOURA HILLS 6,274.92 29636 CUTHBERT ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24020356 02/08/24
LINA WHITWORTH/BAM!
ARCHITECTURE 1645 MONTE VIENTO S MALIBU, CA 90265 132.74 29754 BADEN PLACE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24022562 03/04/24 PHNINA ELIAS/NINA'S EXP SERVICES 6110 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91606 1,167.40 25242 PRADO DE ROSADO, CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24022696 03/05/24
LYNN HEACOX/THE LAND & WATER CO.,
LLC 209 AVENIDA SAN PABLO ROAD SAN CLEMENTE,CA 92672 9,142.94 6295 MURPHY WAY MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24022827 03/06/24 JAIME MASSEY/PERMIT UNLIMITED 29711 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 8,371.48 2671 N COUNTRY RIDGE ROAD CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24023252 03/11/24 ANDREY PERFILEYV 555 SADIE ROAD TOPANGA, CA 90290 6,301.01 N/A \\vfsshare01\fmd\RM\General AR\GenARRecUnit\DeveloperFee\FY2324\Developer Fee Area 1 packet\Developer Fee Area 1 spreadsheet for Gina 3 of 5 26 AREA DP NO DP DATE BILLING CONTACT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL

PAYMENT FOOTNOTE
ONLINE DEVELOPER FEE PAYMENTS FY23-24
1 SWP24023385 03/12/24 ANGEL AYALA/PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY 24255 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU, CA 90263 8,821.87 24255 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU, CA 90263 1 SWP24025309 4/1/2024 GREGG RUTH 22809 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU, CA 90263 5,607.83 5942 BUSCH DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24025457 4/2/2024 NICK BARSOCCHINI 3502 COAST VIEW MALIBU, CA 90265 1,005.17 22476 CARBON MESA ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24026139 4/9/2024

LAURYN PINSAK/PACIFIC CREST
CONSULTANTS 29635 AGOURA ROAD AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 1,964.43 24325 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24027812 4/25/2024 RYAN LEVIS 24529 DEEP WELL ROAD HIDDEN HILLS, CA 91302 5,619.37 29740 BADEN PLACE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24029602 5/14/2024 UPADI YULIATMO/BURGE/ASSOCIATES 24911 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MALIBU, CA 90265 7,786.00 26714 SEAFULL WAY MALIBU 1 SWP24029602 5/14/2024 BARBARA PERLIN 3602 SHOREHEIGHTS DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 433.80 3602 SHOREHEIGHTS DRIVE MAILBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24030013 5/17/2024

VITUS MATARE/VITUS
MATARE/ASSOCIATES, INC PO BOX 1204 MALIBU, CA 90265-1204 7,715.46 3620 NORANDA LANE MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24030156 5/20/2024 NICK BARSOCCHINI 3502 COAST VIEW MALIBU, CA 90265 1,116.82 6621 WANDERMERE ROAD MALIBU, CA 90265 1 SWP24032369 6/12/2024

MATTHEW GUERRERO/MATTHEW

GUERRERO DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
INC 23241 VENTURA BLVD STE. 316 STE 316 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 193.97 22880 PAUL REVERE DRIVE CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24032660 6/14/2024
ANDREA SHAPIRO/ANDREA R. SHAPIRO,
DESIGN STUDIO 5320 YOLANDA AVENUE TARZANA, CA 91356 1,322.55 25420 PRADO DE LAS CALABAZAS CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24032940 6/18/2024 ANGUS MCDONALD 2873 SEABREEZE DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265 619.54 2873 SEABREEZE DRIVE MALIBU, CA 90265-2946 \\vfsshare01\fmd\RM\General AR\GenARRecUnit\DeveloperFee\FY2324\Developer Fee Area 1 packet\Developer Fee Area 1 spreadsheet for Gina 4 of 5 27 AREA DP NO DP DATE BILLING CONTACT NUMBER DIR STREET CITY TOTAL

PAYMENT FOOTNOTE
ONLINE DEVELOPER FEE PAYMENTS FY23-24
1 OTC00992 9/20/2023 MALIBU VALLEY PARTNERS LLC 26885 MULHOLLAND HWY CALABASAS $1,796.07 26789 MULHOLLAND DRIVE, CALABASAS, CA 91302 1 SWP24008412 10/2/2023

DREW PURVIS/DP PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT, INC 4951 VIA AURORA NEWBURY 5,407.03 242 MALIBU ROAD, MALIBU, CA 90265 1 OTC01585 11/7/2023 FREDRICK S RPBERTS 33363 PCH MALIBU $28.12 33363 PCH, Malibu, CA 90265 1 OTC01604 11/8/2023 PORTWY/PEPPERDINE UNIVERITY 24255 PCH MAILBU $210,883.13 24255 PCH 48, Malibu, CA 90263 1 OTC00577 8/17/2023 DYER LLC 23869 LONG VALLEY ROAD HIDDEN HILLS $15,772.00 23869 LONG VALLEY ROAD, HIDDEN HILLS, CA 91302 TOTAL: 448,450.16
\\vfsshare01\fmd\RM\General AR\GenARRecUnit\DeveloperFee\FY2324\Developer Fee Area 1 packet\Developer Fee Area 1 spreadsheet for Gina 5 of 5 TOTAL outside Malibu city limits $333,393.10
Note: 24255 PCH is outside city limits
TOTAL Malibu $115,057.06
28

Council Agenda Report

To: Mayor Stewart and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Maureen Tamuri, AIA, AICP, Interim Planning Director Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: April 18, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-021 regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 and Site Plan Review No. 23- 024 – An application to construct a new single-family residence, second unit and associated development (30053 Harvester Road, Owner, Steven Kent; Appellants, Dawn N. Ericson, Paul E Philipson, and Andrea Slosberg-Philipson)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 25-17 (Exhibit A) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal No. 24-004 (Exhibit B) and Appeal No. 24-005 (Exhibit C), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, twostory, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot detached yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road (Kent).

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

WORK PLAN: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

5.B.
1

DISCUSSION: The matter before the Council is two appeals challenging the Planning Commission approval of CDP No. 23-019, an application for a proposed two-story, singlefamily residence, second unit, and associated development (Exhibit E – Project Plans).

This agenda report provides a project overview, summary of the previous meetings, a summary of project setting and surrounding land uses, a description of the project scope, an analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Project Overview and Background
The subject property is a vacant, undeveloped lot, located north of Harvester Road within the Malibu Park neighborhood. Properties within the vicinity of the subject property are zoned RR-2 and are developed with one- and two-story single-family residences and accessory structures. The project area is not designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map. The closest LCP mapped stream is approximately 900 feet away on either side of the subject property as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: LCP Indicated Streams and ESHA
Source: City GIS
The subject application includes the construction of a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement plus a 750 square foot attached 2

three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached accessory garage, and 432 square foot yoga studio The proposed project includes SPR No. 23-024 for construction of a residence over 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet with a flat roof. The proposed Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) is 6,852 square feet out of the allowable 7,043 square feet.

The two immediate neighbors on either side (east and west) have asserted opposition to the project since before the initial Planning Commission public hearing on March 18, 2024.

Staff have attempted to work through the issues with both neighbors and the applicant since their initial opposition was made known. Numerous site visits have been conducted to each property by both the staff project planner and the City’s Biologist. The City’s Biologist summarized the findings of both site visits and they are attached as Exhibits H and I.

Staff have also met with the neighbors, their representatives, and the applicant numerous times at City Hall, via phone, and through email conversations, but no compromise was reached by the parties. The applicant has expressed that they have also met with the neighbors independently to explore alternatives and while they seemed close to agreements on a couple occasions, each fell through after one of the appealing parties was not willing to accept the asks of the other appealing party. After the project was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2024, appeals from each neighbor were timely filed within the 10-day appeal period.

Previous Public Hearings
On March 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held the first meeting on the Project.

Throughout the review process and during the meeting, neighbors on either side of the project site expressed concerns regarding the proposed development. The residents at 30069 Harvester Road (west) expressed concerns regarding potential ESHA and native protected trees on the property boundary between their property and the project site. The residents at 30033 Harvester Road (east) expressed concerns over the proposed development’s height, neighborhood character, massing, and location. The item was continued to the April 15, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time to research and address concerns raised at the meeting. The March 18, 2024, staff reports and related correspondence are attached to this report as Exhibit F.

On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission heard the item for a second time. The applicant had proposed one revision to the plans as a result of the concerns raised at the previous meeting: a revised second unit design that ensured that the bedroom and living area were connected internally. After hours of deliberation, including public testimony from the applicant, their neighbors, and their representatives, the Planning Commission approved the project on a 3-2 vote. The April 15, 2024, staff report and related correspondence are attached as Exhibit G. Appeal No. 24-004, neighbor to the west 3

(Ericson), submitted their appeal on April 25, 2024. Appeal No. 24-005, neighbor to the east (Philipson), also submitted their appeal on April 25, 2024.

Both attached Planning Commission staff reports (Exhibits F and G) go into detail regarding the project merits and address the concerns of the neighbors. The videos regarding the Planning Commission deliberations on the items can be found on the City’s website at https://malibucity.org/agendacenter.

APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Both appellants allege the findings or conditions are not supported by evidence and that the decision is not supported by the findings; that there was a lack of a fair or impartial hearing; and that the decision was contrary to law. Both appellant’s specific arguments are summarized below in italics using phrases taken from the appeal documents. The full text of the appeal documents can be found in Exhibits B and C. The items of each appeal will be analyzed separately in this report with the Appeal No. 24-004 being analyzed first, followed by Appeal No. 24-005.

Appeal No 24-004: Neighbor to the west (Ericson)
APPEAL ITEM 1: The Appellant states, “the channel that runs along the westerly boundary of the Project Site, at the bottom of the ravine, is a topographic feature that qualifies as a “stream” for purposes of the policies and regulations of the Malibu Local Coastal Program… the Planning Commission proceeded in violation of MLIP section 13.9 (C) by approving the ADU as sited. By this MLIP provision, the Commission may not approve a project as proposed, unless it is “the least environmentally damaging [development] alternative.”” The appellant’s representative provides evidence for why they believe that a stream, as defined by the LCP, is present along the border between the subject property and the Ericson’s property at 30069 Harvester Road to the west, where the proposed detached second unit and garage are sited. The attorney cites an ecologist’s memo dated March 17, 2024, video testimony from the Ericson family, and comments from a Planning Commissioner. This evidence was presented to the Planning Commission and is part of the public record in both this staff report’s exhibits and online video archive.

Staff Response: The project site does not contain mapped ESHA pursuant to the LCP’s ESHA maps. The closest LCP mapped stream is 900 feet away on either side of the subject property as shown in Figure 1 above. The applicant submitted a biological inventory prepared by Edith Read and Associates, Inc. which concluded that no ESHA, including a stream, exists on or adjacent to the property. The slopes between the two properties descend into their shared property boundary creating a drainage course that is being referred to the appellant as a stream. The biological inventory prepared by Edith Read concludes the following:
4

“These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species.”
Figure 2 – Appellant’s Area of Concern
Source: City GIS
The LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 4.3(A) states the following with regard to ESHA determination,
“Any area not designated on the ESHA Overlay Map that meets the “environmentally sensitive area” definition (Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP) is ESHA and shall be accorded all the protection provided for ESHA in the LCP. The City shall determine the physical extent of habitat meeting the definition of “environmentally sensitive area” on the project site, based on the applicant’s site-specific biological study, as well as available independent evidence.” As stated previously, the area of concern is not mapped ESHA per the LCP ESHA maps.

A site-specific biological study was conducted by the applicant’s biologist which concluded that ESHA does not exist within the parcel. The City Biologist reviewed the 5

materials submitted for the project and concluded that the subject property does not have ESHA, as defined by the LCP. The day of the first Planning Commission hearing, the appellant submitted a letter prepared by Lauren Harris, an ecologist, on behalf of Channel Island’s Restoration, a non-profit group. The ecologist concluded the following:
“This site acts as a drainage for the higher elevation parts of the watershed to the north of the property. Despite some drainage diversions implemented over the past few years, this area likely still acts as a seasonal, ephemeral catchment and supports some riparian vegetation. This may meet the Malibu LIP definition of “stream” which would qualify the site as an ESHA. Due to the biological value of this area, I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the site and its protections in the face of urbanization.”
Due to the conflicting reports, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item at the March 18, 2024, meeting, to permit additional time to further evaluate the area. The City Biologist reviewed all the evidence in the record, including the two conflicting biological studies, and conducted an onsite investigation. On March 26, 2024, the City Biologist prepared a memorandum summarizing her findings (Exhibit H). The memo concluded the following:
“City of Malibu definition of a stream is “a topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation”. Based on the site visit conducted at the 30053 Harvester Road project site, the area in question was not determined to be a stream by the City Biologist. The topographic feature likely “periodically conveys water” simply based on site characteristics of culverts at the presumably beginning and end of the feature (Cuthbert and Harvester).”
The appellant also contends that the March 26, 2024, memorandum from the City Biologist was not correct and that the City Biologist had not confirmed potential ESHA conditions on the appellant’s property at the time of its publishing. Ms. Ericson stated that the Biologist never came to her property and therefore could not have evaluated the potential stream properly. The City Biologist was asked by City staff to go back out to the site, this time to Ms. Ericson’s property and conduct a second study of the site conditions. The City Biologist prepared a second memorandum dated August 6, 2024, to which she concluded the following:
“The determination made by the City Biologist in the March 26th, 2024 memo (attached at the end of this memo) has not changed following a site visit to 30069 Harvester. The site visit to the adjacent property did not lend any new insights that the City Biologist did not gather during the first visit.” 6

The applicant has fulfilled the ESHA (LIP Chapter 4) requirements of the LCP by submitting a site-specific biological study which found no evidence of LCP defined ESHA within the area. The City Biologist concurred with the findings of the biological study and confirmed via multiple visits to the property. The Planning Commission appropriately vetted all the evidence in the record including that of the appellant team and determined that no ESHA exists on the subject property.

APPEAL ITEM 2: The Appellant states that “Commissioner Smith’s conduct, including his refusal to meet with appellant, prevented appellant from refuting or rebutting any of the ex parte representations made to him by the applicant. Without the opportunity to hear what was discussed in informal, unregulated settings prior to formal Planning Commission hearings, there is no transparency, and the appellant and other interested property owners or members of the public are placed at a disadvantage.” The appellant’s representative references the Commissioner’s actions and case law, and asserts that Commissioner Smith should have recused himself from the hearing.

Staff Response: Every applicant is entitled to a fair hearing before an unbiased decisionmaker that has not pre-judged the matter. The standard for “bias” is “an unacceptable probability of actual bias” proven by “concrete facts,” not implied from the circumstances.

The constitutional threshold is reached when such “probability of bias” is “too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”
Planning Commissioners are not required to, or prohibited from, meeting with individuals in advance of a hearing. However, should a Commissioner learn information from such meetings that is not in the public record he or she must disclose that information. In this case, Commissioner Smith disclosed at the Planning Commission hearings that upon his project analysis, he did not learn anything that was not included in the Staff report.

Appellant does not provide evidence that extra record evidence was provided to Commissioner Smith or that it any such information affected his decision, nor have they provided evidence of an “unacceptable probability of actual bias.” Concrete facts are required, not mere speculation. The appellant was granted a fair hearing and was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In addition, the City Council’s review of the proposed project is de novo and no deference is owed to the decision and actions of the Planning Commission. As a result, any concerns raised by the appeal would be cured by the action of the City Council on the appeal.

APPEAL ITEM 3: The appellant states that “The Planning Commission’s decision was contrary to law for the reasons stated in Section 1 above. It was also contrary to law because the Commission approved a legally unsupported exemption of the Project from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000.) The Staff Report offered no analysis showing why the cited Class 3 CEQA categorical exemptions applies, and no analysis why none of the six exceptions apply.” 7

The appellant’s representative cites CEQA guidelines sections as well as testimony from the appellant to support his claims.

Staff Response: Public Resources Code 21000–21189 and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387) are the State regulations that implement CEQA. On every development project, a public agency must determine the extent by which a development project meets CEQA requirements. CEQA Guidelines sections 15300 to 153322 cover categorical exemptions to CEQA. A project that is considered minor and having a negligible impact on the environment may be categorically exempt from CEQA requirements to conduct an Initial Study and/or further CEQA studies such as an Environmental Impact Report.

Staff cited, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the project qualifies under a class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15303(a) and (e) which state, “Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.”
Additionally, the project does attribute to any exception of the exemptions listed in section 15300.2.

The categorical exemptions used under this project have been used on hundreds of projects since the City’s incorporation. The City must file the categorical exemptions with the County Clerk following approval of a project. The City’s use of these exemptions on previous, similar, cases dating back decades has shown that the City has been using these exemptions appropriately. In some cases, a proposed single-family home may require further CEQA study if there is the potential for significant environmental impact. Evidence in the record including the numerous staff reports, public hearings, and technical documents submitted by the applicant have shown that this project qualifies for the categorical exemptions mentioned. Even for projects that included impacts to ESHA, which this one does not, the same categorical exemptions have been used successfully by the City and filed with the County as required by law.

Appeal No 24-005: Neighbor to the east (Philipson)
8

APPEAL ITEM 1: The appellant states that “There are much safer and less contentious alternative sites for the multiple structures proposed at 30053 Harvester. Clustering is a requirement to avoid exactly what has been proposed to develop 97% of the property leaving no open space for natural settings, and significantly increasing the Hazard of fire risk for the dwelling at 30033 Harvester. The encroachment of the proposed plan upon the stream/ESHA sensitive area on the western border would be substantially better protected when installing the driveway on the eastern border. Increasing the setback on the eastern border to 26’ and siting the driveway towards the topography and commonly used driving path will open a view corridor that is now completely blocked by the proposed siting… Clustering will bring the ADU unit on the western border up towards the other structures creating a safer open space for all wildlife pathways and provide more open space for the natural setting.”
The appellant claims the Malibu LCP and MMC require that development should be clustered on the site, primary view determination implementation, findings provided in the staff reports and Planning Commission decision, and neighborhood character.

Staff Response: Staff’s response will address each of these issues in turn.

Setbacks/Clustering
In this instance the applicant proposed to meet only the minimum side yard setback requirements on the east side of their property in order to maximize ocean views for themselves since this portion of the property is at the highest elevation. The setback conforms with the requirements of the LIP, and was evaluated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and determined to meet State Fire Code requirements related to safe setbacks.

While the applicant could have clustered development toward the center of the property, that would not have achieved their desire of maximizing ocean views from their primary residence. Regarding clustering, LIP Section 3.6(N)(1)(c) states that “Any permitted second residential unit shall be located within the approved development area for the project site and shall be clustered with the primary dwelling unit and any other approved structures to minimize required fuel modification.” Development area is defined in both the MMC and LCP as the following:

DEVELOPMENT AREA - the approved portion of a project site that is developed, including the building pad and all graded slopes, all structures, and parking areas. If it is demonstrated that it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint to include all graded slopes within the development area, then graded slopes may be excluded from the approved development area. The area of one access driveway or roadway not to exceed twenty feet wide, and one hammerhead safety turnaround, as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department not located within the approved building 9

pad shall be excluded from the total development area. The fuel modification area required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approved structures may extend beyond the limits of the approved development area.

Development area is further defined in the MMC under Section 17.40.040(A)(10) as “Development Area. Except for an affordable housing development within the AHO Overlay, every residential development shall be contained within a convex-shaped enclosure that shall not exceed two acres.” The entire project is proposed within a twoacre convex development area. The second unit and primary residence are sited closer together than other alternatives such as siting the second unit toward the front of the elongated parcel. The applicant could also have clustered the development further to the eastern property boundary, where the primary residence is located.

Figure 3: Applicant’s Site Plan
The appellant neighbor to the west, located at 30069 Harvester Road, prefers the second unit to be pushed away from their property, while the appellant neighbor to the east at 30033 Harvester Road wishes for the proposed primary home to be pushed closer to the west. The applicant is thus being asked by the neighbors, both appellants, to centralize their development toward the middle of the subject property. Figure 4 below illustrates that almost every residence in the immediate neighborhood enjoys a setback that is very close to their side property lines, to the extent that they likely do not conform to the LIP’s current setback requirements. Requiring the development to be clustered in the middle of the property would depart from the pattern of development enjoyed by many of the immediate 10

neighbors who have located their homes near the edge of their lots to maximize views or enjoy other benefits
Figure 4: Neighborhood Setbacks
Source: City GIS
Allegations Related to Views
The LCP does not have any requirements related to private view protections. Instead, the LCP focuses on public view protections. This project is not visible from any scenic areas and thus meets the goals and policies of the LCP.

MMC chapter 17.45 details the citywide view protection ordinance, and allows homeowners to protect their primary views from a single set location by obtaining and documenting a Primary View Determination (PVD) (see MMC sections 17.45.050 and 11

17.40.040(A)(17)). Even if a PVD is established, it cannot be used to prevent development that is 18 feet tall or less—it only applies to obstructions located above 18 feet from the ground. MMC section 17.40.040(A)(17) specifically provides: “The primary view corridor shall exclude the first 18 feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever results in a lower building height.” This issue is more thoroughly analyzed in the attached Planning Commission staff reports but to summarize the findings in those reports, the area that the appellant is concerned with is not protected under their PVD since the portions of the development that impact views of the Santa Monica Mountains are less than 18 feet in height.

The appellant first contacted staff in early March of 2024, mostly about view impacts after installation of the story poles. Staff conducted a primary view determination at the request of the appellant in March of 2024 (Exhibit J). Staff determined, and the Planning Commission concurred, that even if the height above 18 feet were removed from the plans the impacts to ocean and mountain views from the home at 30033 Harvester Road would remain the same since the portions of the development blocking the views are all at or below 18 feet in height. The portions of the structure that are above 18 feet will not be visible from the PVD location; only the 11-18 foot tall walls of the proposed single- family structure will be visible as demonstrated in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: View Impacts via PVD No. 24-009
12

Proposed Elevation from Appellant’s View
Neighborhood Character
One of the findings required for the Project, as it is over 18 feet in height, is the site plan review requirement that “The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character”.

The height above 18 feet is consistent with numerous two-story structures in the immediate neighborhood that are of similar or greater height than the proposed development.
13

Although historical practice in applying SPR findings to projects that are over 18 feet in height generally limits the examination to those portions of the project above 18 feet, staff still required the applicant to conduct a more thorough analysis of the neighborhood to see if the entirety of the development would be outside the neighborhood character. The applicant provided a neighborhood character analysis in which they surveyed all properties within a 500 foot radius (Exhibit K). The applicant’s neighborhood character analysis studied the size, number of structures, and shape of the prosed development compared to other homes in the neighborhood. Staff required the study to include at least 10 developed lots within a 500-foot radius
The analysis found that within a 500-foot radius of the project site, at least four properties have a TDSF larger than the proposed development and one is of a similar size, within 150 square feet. The proposed TDSF will be larger than the average of the neighborhood, within 500 feet, but it is not expected to be an outlier as the proposed project consists of multiple smaller elongated buildings, rather than one large structure. As designed, the proposed buildings do not have an imposing appearance from any public viewing areas.

There are numerous properties within the neighborhood with accessory detached structures such as garages and guest houses, ranging between 1-4 structures. 30021 Harvester Road and 29979 Harvester Road share similar elongated shapes of structures that run parallel with the elongated shape of the parcel. Although it should be noted those structures are smaller in size and take up less massing along the side property lines of their respective parcels. Although the applicant is proposing a TDSF close to the maximum allowed for the property, other properties in the neighborhood are developed in a similar manner and have similar massing as viewed from public viewing areas. 14

Figure 5: Applicant’s Neighborhood Character Study
APPEAL ITEM 2: The appellant states that “When an approval is made despite errors and omissions in reporting of facts on the Staff report, the decision cannot be impartial. There appears to be a slanted / favorable interpretation of facts in the Staff Report.” The appellant contends statements made in the staff report and statements made by a Planning Commissioner, specifically that the PVD photos were not oriented in the direction preferred by the appellant leading to an incorrect determination, that a Planning Commissioner incorrectly stated that the majority of the eucalyptus trees were on the appellant’s property, that the amount of site disturbance conflicts with the LCP’s requirements, and the residence’s location could not be in compliance with the hazard fire risk requirements of the LCP.

Staff Response: Regarding the PVD, the appellant signed the PVD acknowledgment form and ultimately concurred with staff that the PVD photos including the location and photographic information. The PVD acknowledgment form is an agreement made by the PVD holder and staff that the photos and location of the PVD are accurate and meet the code requirements. Staff communicated the allowances of the code that are mentioned in this report. When staff left the appellant’s property, it was understood that that the PVD 15

may or may not help their case. After staff went back and reviewed the project plans in comparison to the photos, it was clear that portions of the proposed structure at 18 feet or below, which are not protected, would block any impacts from the portions of the building above 18 feet in height; the applicant was within their rights allowed by the code and thus the staff allowed the project to move forward to the Planning Commission without revision and the Planning Commission ultimately approved the project. The appellant’s photos and statements were taken into consideration during the Planning Commission meetings.

The appellant cites section within MMC Chapter 17.45, Citywide View Preservation and Restoration, and claims that the decision is contrary to law because the project does not comply with the chapter.

The chapter specifically gives the process and measures by which someone with a PVD can have their protected view restored. The purpose of the chapter is to ensure that foliage does not grow or be placed to block an established primary view corridor documented in a PVD. As the chapter entails, “The purpose of this chapter is to establish a right for property owners to preserve a primary view that existed on or after February 13, 2012, and to restore a pre-existing view, as defined in this chapter, which has been significantly obstructed by foliage, while striking an equitable balance between the right to reasonable use of one's property including the maintenance of privacy and the right to protection against unreasonable loss of views.” The view obstructions in question are that of a proposed single-family residence, not to restore a view impacted by foliage, therefore the staff applied MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(17) as mentioned above. As previously mentioned, development at 18 feet or below is not protected. The development that blocks scenic views from the appellant’s property is at 18 feet or below.

Regarding the amount of site disturbance proposed and the fire hazard. The project meets all the minimum requirements including impermeable coverage, TDSF, and grading limits of the LCP and MMC. The project also meets the required setbacks, fire flow, and fuel modification requirements imposed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

SUMMARY: The evidence demonstrates that the required findings can be made that the project complies with the LCP. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends denial of the appeals and approval of this project subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 6 (Conditions of Approval) of Resolution No. 25-17. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff, appropriate City and County departments, and approved by the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department 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, Staff recommends that the Council find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA 16

pursuant to Sections 15303 (a) and (e) – New Construction and that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

CORRESPONDENCE: Staff received various correspondence mentioned in the sections section above. All correspondence is included in Exhibit L, attached to this report.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu on April 3, 2025, and mailed the notice to property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Exhibit M).

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 25-17 (Distributed under a separate cover) B. Appeal No. 24-004
C. Appeal No. 24-005
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21
E. Project Plans
F. March 18, 2024 Staff Report and Attachments
G. April 15, 2024 Staff Report and Attachments
H. City Biologist Memo Dated March 26, 2024
I. City Biologist Memo Dated August 6, 2024
J. PVD No.24-009
K. Applicant’s Neighborhood Character Study
L. Correspondence
M. Public Hearing Notice
17 Exhibit A
City Council Resolution No. 25-17 will be
distributed under separate cover.
18 Exhibit B
19 20
21 CDP 23-019
4/16/24 - 4/25/24
4/25/24 Larbi Azzaz
4/25/24 Rebecca Evans, Senior Administrative Analyst
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 Exhibit C
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24—21

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBUI DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23—019 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,270 SQUARE FOOT, TWO—STORY, SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 970 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, PLUS A 750 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, 900 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED SECOND UNIT, 500 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGEI 432 SQUARE FOOT YOGA STUDIO, SWIMMING POOL, GRADING, LANDSCAPING. HARDSCAPE, AND

ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-024 TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENCE IN EXCESS OF 18 FEET IN HEIGHT UP TO 24 FEET FOR A FLAT ROOF, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO—ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 30053

HARVESTER ROAD (KENT)
The Planning Commission of the City Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION l. Recitals.

A. On March 15, 2023, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23- 01 9, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 t0 construct the residence in excess of l 8 feet in height, up to 24 feet with a flat roof was submitted to the City for review. The application was routed to the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On November 1, 2023, a Notice of CDP Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On March 4, 2024, staff conducted a site visit to inspect the installation ofstory poles.

D. On November 30, 2023, the CDP application was deemed complete for processing.

E. On February 22, 2024, 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.

F. On March 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subj ect application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. The Planning Commission continued the item to the April 15, 2024 meeting so that staffcould further evaluate issues raised by neighbors.

G. On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subj ect application, reviewed and considered the staffreport, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. 53 Exhibit D
Resolution N0. 24-21

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed proj ect. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes ofproiects that have been detennined 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. The Planning Commission has further determined that none ofthe six exceptions to the use ofa categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the proj ect and the hearing on March l8, 2024. and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact below. for CDP No. 23-019 to construct a new 4.270 square foot. two—story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement plus a 750 square foot attached three—car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of l 8 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential located in the Rural Residential, Two—Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road.

The project is consistent with the zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) requirements of the LCP. The project. as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies, inclusive ofthe requested site plan review. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter l3)

1. The project is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The Planning Department, City Biologist. City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, inclusive ofthe requested discretionary request.

2. The proposed development is consistent with existing development in the area and has been determined not to result in adverse impacts. Therefore, there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant beneflt to the environment compared to the proposed project. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, with the inclusion ofthe SPR and is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

3. The subj ect property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map and verified through site-specific biological studies and 54 Resolution N0. 24-21

0nsite investigation from the City’s Biologist. Thus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.

B. Site Plan Review Findings to Allow for Construction in Excess of 18 feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27) SPR No. 23-024 allows construction ofa new single-family residence in excess ofthe 18 feet in height limit established by LIP Section 3.6(E), with a maximum height of24 feet for a flat roof. l. The project has been reviewed, conditioned and approved for conformance with the LCP by all applicable City and County depaitments and was found to be consistent with the LCPt inclusive ofthe subject site plan review.

2. In February 2024, the applicant installed story poles and photo documented the story poles. Staff evaluated the project for conformance with City codes. Properties in the vicinity ofthe subject property are developed with a mix of one and two—story single—family residences and accessory structures. As demonstrated with story poles, due to the size. shape and topography ofthe lot, the location f the proposed development will not be visible from any scenic road or located within protected primary views ofneighboring properties. Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment. Therefore, the portions of the structure exceed 18 feet in height are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

3. The existing size and shape ofthe subject property limits visibility ofthe proposed development from Pacific Coast Highway or any scenic area as described in the LCP. Primary View Determinations within the area are not expected to be impacted by the proposed development.

4. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. The proposed project has received LCP conformance review from all applicable City departments and the LACFD and WD29. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County departments.

5. The proposed project. as designed and conditioned. is consistent with the LCP in that it is consistent with the applicable residential land use designation and is consistent with all applicable development and design standards of the LCP and General Plan, inclusive of the associated discretionary request. The proposed residence incorporates siting and design measures to minimize visual impacts and landform alteration.

6. Story poles were placed on the site in February 2024 to demonstrate the location, height and bulk ofthe proposed development and to aid the visual analysis of potential private and public view impacts. The portions of the proposed development above 18 feet in height will not significantly impede any protected private visually impressive views ofthe Pacific Ocean or other scenic areas indicated in the LCP or MMC. 55 Resolution N0. 24—21

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability ofthe site from geologic, flood, or tire hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

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

3. The proposed project. as designed and conditioned. is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. There are no feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project is not expected to have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23—019. and SPR No. 23—024 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions ofApproval.

Standard Conditions
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 oflitigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any 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.

1. 2. Approval ofthis application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage; 900 square foot detached second unit; 500 square foot detached accessory garage; 432 square foot yoga studio Permeable driveway;
Swimming pool;
OQWWOOO‘— New landscaping; and;
56 U).

Resolution N0. 24—21

h. OWTS;
Except as specifically changed by conditions ofapproval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope ofwork, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date—stamped April 2, 2024. 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.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13. l 8.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns 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 ofany development permits.

The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set ofplans 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.

The CDP shall expire ifthe 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.

Any questions of intent or interpretation ofany condition ofapproval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

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.

Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions ofapproval may be approved by the Planning Director. provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC and LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20. development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals. including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.
ll. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition. 57 ReSGIutiOn No. 24—21

Cultural Resources

12. 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. Thereaften the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 1 l and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

13. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction. work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 ofthe California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification ofthe 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.

Geology

14. 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.

15. 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.

Environmental Health

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

17. Final OWTS Plot Plan: 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 ofthe OWTS and must fit onto an 1 1—inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. Ifthe scale ofthe 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).

18. Final OWTS Design Report. Plans. and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planning— 58 Resolution N0. 24-21

stag€ review, then a flnal OWTS design report and large set ofconstruction 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, backtlow 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). l9. 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.

20. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above). a. The Whitson Engineers grading plans depict a new fill slope in the vicinity ofthe future leach trenches. Please discuss impact ofthe proposed grading on the OWTS design and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate. b. 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 drainage fixture equivalents. and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity. even ifthe design is based on the number ofbedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; c. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description ofproposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.

State the proposed type oftreatment 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; d. 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 ofgallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. 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 59 Resolution N0. 24—21

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 fmal designs. full—size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

21. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: l) 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 Environmental Sustainability Department.

22. Proofofownership ofsubject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

23. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. This shall be the same operations and maintenance manual submitted to the owner and/or operator of the proposed OWTS following installation.

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

25. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

26. 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 ESHA, if applicable.

27. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. 60 Res01ution N0. 24—21

Street Improvements

28. This project proposes t0 construct a new driveway within City‘s right-of—way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval 0f the grading or building permit. the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either 6—inches of concrete over 4-inches ofaggregate base, or 4-inches ofasphalt concrete over 6-inches ofaggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

Grading / Drainage / Hydrology

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

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

31. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofgrading 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 ofgrading, 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 flll slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12— inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

32. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) 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, outlet. post—construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements. 61 Resolution N0. 24—21

33. 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.

34. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability” including roof. landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion. only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation ofBMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals. bacteria, nutrients. pesticides. herbicides and sediment.

Prohibits the discharge oftrash.
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.

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

All Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage ofconstruction materials. solid waste management. and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

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
62 Resoluti0n N0. 24-21

36. 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.

37. A Stomi Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with 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 pie—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 ofthe grading or building permit for this project.

Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November l to March 3 l) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to l.

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. lfgrading 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 l. unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

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

40. 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.

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

42. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permlts.

43. 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 usmg ozonation;
There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
63 Resolution N0. 24—21

44. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.3 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identities all areas contributory to the property and an analysis ofthe predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design BMPs;
Source Control BMPs;
Treatment Control BMPs;
Drainage improvements;
Methods for onsite percolation. site re-vegetation and an analysis for off—site project impacts; Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; g. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
The WQMP shall be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review ofthe WQMP shall be paid prior to the start ofthe technical review. Once the plan is approved and stamped by the Public Works Department. the original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted prior to the Public Works Department approval ofbuilding plans for the project. (DQ06‘
7*7
Water Quality / Water Service

45. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve letter from WD29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability ofthe property to receive adequate water service.

Fire Department

46. The project will require fire flow of 1.250 gallons per minute at 2O psi (pounds per square inch) for a one—hour duration.

47. The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system.

Construction / Framing

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

49. 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.
64 Resoluti0n No. 24-21

50. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount ofequipment 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.

51. 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 BMPS to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoffin 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.

52. 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.

Colors and Materials

53. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Retaining walls shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. The color of driveways and retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on all grading, improvement and/or building plans.

Lighting

54. Exterior lighting 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; 65 Resolution N0. 24-21

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.

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

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology/Landscaping

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

60. Prior to or at the time ofPlanning Final inspection. the propeity owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy ofthe plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed offby the Building Safety Division.

61. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final proj ect 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 Section 17.53.030).

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Section 17.53.030. (form attached)

62. Prior to final plan check approval. if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29. please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

63. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge). serving the same function as a fence or wall. occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six (6) feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. Three sequential violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

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

65. Invasive plan species. as determined by the City of Malibu. are prohibited. 66 Resolution N0. 24-21

66. NO non-native plan species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

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

68. Grading/ Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February l - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation ofsite 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 ofthe surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys

69. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up—lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

70. Necessary boundary fencing ofany single area exceeding 1/2 acre shall be of‘an open rail—type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead ofwire). 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.

Swimming P001 / Spa / Water Feature

71. On-site noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool 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 ofthe inner wall.

74. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Malibu Water Quality Ordinance. discharge of water from a pool / spa is prohibited. Provide information on the plans regarding the type of sanitation proposed for pool. a. Ozonization systems are an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge ofclear water from ozonization systems is not permitted to the street; b. Salt water sanitation is an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge of salt water is not permitted to the street; and
c. Chlorinated water from pools or spas shall be trucked to a publicly-owned treatment works facility for discharge.

75. The discharge ofchlorinated and non-chlorinated pool / spa water into streets. storm drains. creeks. canyons. drainage channels. or other locations where it could enter receiving waters 67 ReSOIution N0. 24-21

is prohibited.

76. A Sign stating “It is illegal t0 discharge p001, spa” 01‘ water feature waters t0 a street, drainage course, 0r storm drain per MMC Section 13.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property.

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

Fencing and Walls

78. 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 oftwo or more walls.

79. Necessary boundary fencing ofa single area exceeding 0.5-acre shall be ofan open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead ofwire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than l4-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

80. 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. The applicant/owner must submit a detailed fence plan prior to fmal Planning approval to ensure wildlife friendly fencing requirements have been met.

81. Construction fencing shall be installed within five feet ofthe limits of grading prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period (or until the fire protection wall is constructed) to protect the site’s sensitive habitat area.

Prior t0 Occupancy

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

83. 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.

84. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. The final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled. broken down by material types.

85. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to a final inspection by the Environmental Sustainability Department. A Certificate ofOccupancy 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 68 Resolution N0. 24—21

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.

86. 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 ofthe certificate ofoccupancy.

Deed Restrictions

87. The property owner is 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 ofthe permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy ofthe recorded document.

88. 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. 55-59.

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

Fixed Conditions

89. This coastal development permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

90. Violation ofany 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 ofthis Resolution.

PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15‘“ day of April 2024 JOHN
@QW
G MAZZA Plannrno m r ss on Chair
ATTEST:
@QWQW REBECCA EVANS Recording Secretary
69 Resolution No. 24—21

LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant t0 LCP LIP Section 1320.1 (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.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489. ext. 246.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-21 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 15‘“ day ofApril. 2024 by the following vote:
619m REBECCA EVANS,QWL Recording Secretary
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Peak. Smith, Leonard NOES: 2 Commissioners: Hill. Mazza ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0
70 Exhibit E
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
2 85
86 87
88

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: February 20, 2024 Meeting Date: March 18, 2024 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 and Site Plan Review No. 23- 024 – An application for a new single-family residence, a second unit, and associated development
Location: 30053 Harvester Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4469-009-010
Owner: Steven Kent
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road (Kent).

DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a project overview, a summary of project setting and surrounding land uses, a description of the project scope, an analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Costal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Planning Commission
Meeting
03-18-24
Item

5.A.

Exhibit F
89

Project Overview
The subject application includes the construction of a new residence, second unit, and accessory development (Attachment 2). The proposed project includes SPR No. 23-024 for construction of a residence over 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet with a flat roof.

In February of 2024, after story poles were erected, staff received concerns from a neighbor regarding the project. Specifically, the neighbor was concerned with the possibility of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) being present onsite. The neighbor raised points regarding a potential stream that exists between 30069 and 30053 Harvester Road. The applicant submitted a biological inventory by Edith Read and Associates, Inc. regarding site conditions which concluded that no ESHA, including a stream, exists on or adjacent to the property. The applicant was not required to provide further information and ESHA, including the presence of a stream or riparian habitat was determined to be absent on the property. The western portion of the property slopes down into a gulley where vegetation currently resides. The biological inventory concluded the following:
“These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral. No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of nonnative landscape species.” In March of 2024, staff received letters of support for the project, specifically stating that the proposed design will be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the neighborhood.

The complete correspondence is attached to this report as Attachment 5.

Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject property is located north of Harvester Road between Deerhead Road and Filaree Heights. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are zoned RR-2 and are developed with one- and two-story single-family residences and accessory structures. The project area is not designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map. 90

Figure 1 – Aerial Site Photo
Source: City GIS, 2024
According to the LCP Park Lands Map, the Zuma Ridge Trail resides just south of the property along Harvester Road. However, this portion of the Zuma Ridge Trail is not improved. As a trail that has yet to be improved, views from it are not protected.

MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(20) requires additional development standards if the proposed development meets the definition for “Hillside residential development” and is visible from a scenic area. The applicant submitted a color-coded slope analysis using 10-foot contours as required by the MMC. The proposed project does not meet the definition for “Hillside residential development” because no portion of the development is proposed on 30 percent slopes.

Table 1 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area. 91

Table 1 – Project Setting
Lot Depth 341’-1” feet
Lot Width 135 feet
Gross Lot Area 49,151 square feet
Net Lot Area* 43,751 square feet
*Net Lot Area=Gross Lot Area minus the area of public, or private future, street easements and 1 to 1 slopes.

Table 2 provides a summary of the neighboring surrounding land uses and lot sizes.

Table 2- Adjacent Land Uses
Direction Address Size Zone Land Use
North 30000 Cuthbert Rd 3.04 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence (Destroyed in Woolsey Fire)
North 29956 Cuthbert Rd 1.9 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence South 30040 Harvester Rd 1.22 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence East 30033 Harvester Rd 1.3 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence West 30069 Harvester Rd 1.67 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence The lot is bounded by descending 4 to 1 (in blue) on the east, and steeper slopes (in green) ascending 3 to 1 to the west. The flattest area of the lot is the building pad for the proposed residence. The development is sited to avoid slopes steeper than 3 to 1 (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Color Coded Slope Analysis
Source: Applicant
92

Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows (Attachment 2 - Project Plans):

Construction
a. 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage;
b. 900 square foot detached second unit;
c. 500 square foot detached accessory garage;
d. 432 square foot yoga studio;
e. Permeable driveway;
f. Swimming pool;
g. New landscaping; and
h. OWTS.

Discretion Request
• SPR No. 23-024 for construction up to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet with a flat roof.

Proposed Total Development Square Footage (TDSF)
• Single-family residence w/attached garage 5,020 sq.ft. • Second unit 900 sq.ft.
• Detached accessory garage 500 sq.ft.
• Yoga studio 432 sq.ft.

Total: 6,852 sq.ft.

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP carries out the policies of the LUP and contains specific requirements to which every project requiring a CDP must adhere.

There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) OWTS. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section.

The nine remaining LIP chapters do contain required findings: 1) Coastal Development Permit; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division.
93

For the reasons described in this report, only the following chapters and associated findings are applicable to the project: Coastal Development Permit (including the required findings for the SPR) and Hazards. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Findings section of this report.

LIP Conformance Analysis
The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 (WD29), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) reviewed the proposed project (Attachment 4 – Department Review Sheets). These specialists found the project, as proposed and conditioned, to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies, inclusive of the discretionary requests.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The project is subject to non-beachfront residential development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Table 3 provides a summary and indicates the proposed project meets those standards, inclusive of the discretionary requests.

Table 3 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required Proposed Comments
SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard 65’ 130’ Complies
Rear Yard 51’-1” 51’-2” Complies
Side Yard (Minimum 10%) [North] 13’-6” 13’-6” Complies
Side Yard [South] 20’- ¼” 20’-3” Complies
Total Required Side Yard (25%) 23’- ¾ “ 23’-9” Complies

PARKING SPACES
Enclosed (10 ft. x18 ft.) 2 3 Complies
Unenclosed (10 ft. x18 ft.) 2 2 Complies
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF) (sq. ft.)
TDSF 7,043 6,852 Complies
Primary Residence w/ Attached Garage 5,020
Detached Garage 500
Detached Second Unit 900 900 Complies
Yoga Studio 432
94

Table 3 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required Proposed Comments
2/3rds RULE = Area above 18 ft. (sq. ft.) 2,008 2,008 Complies Area less than 18 ft. 3,012
HEIGHT (ft.) 18 24 SPR
IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE (sq. ft.) 13,733 12,582 Complies
NON-EXEMPT GRADING (cu. yd.) 1,000 750 Complies
Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards for a residential parcel. As summarized in Table 4, the project includes 895 cubic yards of non-exempt grading. Therefore, the project complies with grading requirements set forth under LIP Section 8.3.

Table 4 – LCP Grading Conformance
R&R
(exempt)
Understructure
(exempt)
Safety
(exempt)
NonexemptRemedial Total
Cut 950 cy 600 cy 100 250 cy 0 1900 cy
Fill 950 cy 150 cy 150 500 cy 0 1750 cy
Total 1900 cy 750 cy 250 750 cy 0 3650 cy
Import 0 0 50 250 cy 0 0
Export 0 450 cy 0 0 0 150 cy
*Note: R &R = Removal and Recompaction; cy= cubic yards ** Exempt grading includes Removal and Recompaction (R &R), understructure, and safety grading. Safety grading is the incremental grading required for fire department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads and turnarounds and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department).

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. A Phase I Archaeological Report was prepared for the subject parcel in December 2021 by Robert J. Wlodarski of Historical, Environmental, Archaeological, Research, Team (H.E.A.R.T.). The report did not identify any evidence of resources onsite and concluded that any improvements within the project area would not have adverse effects on cultural resources.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist 95

can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. A standard condition of approval for this project requires that prior to the issuance of any development permit, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating construction-phase Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Best Management Practices, must be approved by the City Public Works Department. Additionally, the ocean between Latigo Point and the western 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.

As such, the applicant’s drainage system is required to retain all non-stormwater runoff on the property without discharge to the ASBS, and to maintain the natural water quality within the ASBS by treating storm runoff for pollutants in residential storm runoff that would cause a degradation of ocean water quality in the ASBS. A condition is also included requiring a Water Quality Mitigation Plan. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment Systems Standards (LIP Chapter 18) LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The project proposes an OWTS to serve the proposed development, which has been reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator and found to meet the minimum requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code, the MMC and the LCP. The details of the system can be found on the City Environmental Health Administrator Review Sheet, included in Attachment 4. The proposed OWTS will meet all applicable requirements and operating permits will be required. An operation and maintenance contract and recorded covenant covering such must comply with City of Malibu Environmental Health requirements. Conditions of approval have been included in this resolution, which require continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of onsite facilities.

LIP Findings
A. Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
LIP Section 13.9 requires that the following four findings be made for all coastal development permits.

Finding 1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.
96

The project is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, inclusive of the requested discretionary request.

Finding 2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

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

The following alternatives to the proposed project were considered.

Alternative Location Onsite – All structures are proposed within the two-acre convex development area as required by LIP Section 3.6(H). Many properties along Harvester are developed similarly.

The applicant could have proposed a smaller, single-story home to avoid the SPR for height over 18 feet. However, the proposed project will comply with the LCP, including the allowable TDSF. No protected view or ESHA impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed development.

Proposed Project – The project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence, second unit, swimming pool, yoga studio, and associated development. All proposed uses are permitted uses within the RR-2 zoning designation. The project also complies with the impermeable coverage calculation, TDSF calculation, two-thirds rule, and setback requirements. The City Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and the LACFD reviewed the project site and found the project meets with City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC. The proposed development is consistent with existing development in the area and has been determined not to result in adverse impacts. Therefore, there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant benefit to the environment compared to the proposed project. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, with the inclusion of the SPR and is the least environmentally damaging alternative. 97

Finding 4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Thus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required, and this finding does not apply.

B. Site Plan Review No. 23-024 – Construction in Excess of 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27)
A site plan review is proposed to allow the construction of a new residence in excess of 18 feet in height that will be a maximum of 24 feet in height with a flat roof. Pursuant to LIP Section 3.6(E) the height of structures is limited to 18 feet in height, unless a site plan review is approved allowing a height of 24 feet with a flat roof; therefore, a site plan review is required.

LIP Section 13.27.5(A) requires that the City make four findings in consideration and approval of a site plan review. Two additional findings are required pursuant to MMC Section 17.62.060. Based on the foregoing evidence contained in the record, the required findings for SPR No. 23-024 are made as follows:

Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

The project has been reviewed, conditioned and approved for conformance with the LCP by all applicable City and County departments and was found to be consistent with the LCP, inclusive of the subject site plan review.

Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character.

In February 2024, the applicant installed story poles documented by staff photos (Attachment 3). Staff evaluated the project for conformance with City codes. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are developed with a mix of one- and two-story singlefamily residences and accessory structures. As demonstrated with story poles, due to the size, shape and topography of the lot, the location of the proposed development will not be visible from any scenic road or located within primary views of neighboring properties.

Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding build environment. Therefore, the portions of the structure exceed 18 feet in height are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.
98

Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP.

The existing size, shape and location of the subject property limits visibility of the proposed development from Pacific Coast Highway or any scenic area as described in the LCP.

Primary View Determinations within the area are not expected to be impacted by the proposed development.

Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

The proposed project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies.

Finding 5. The project is consistent with the City's general plan and local coastal program.

As discussed in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the LCP in that it is consistent with the applicable residential land use designation and is consistent with all applicable development and design standards of the LCP and General Plan, inclusive of the associated discretionary requests. The proposed residence incorporates siting and design measures to minimize visual impacts and landform alteration.

Finding 6. The portion of the project that is in excess of 18 feet in height does not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40. 040(A)(17).

Story poles were placed on the site in February 2024 to demonstrate the location, height and bulk of the proposed development and to aid the visual analysis of potential private and public view impacts. The proposed development will not significantly impede any private visually impressive views of the Pacific Ocean or other scenic areas indicated in the LCP or MMC. No neighbor contacted staff regarding view impacts.

C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As determined by the City Biologist and depicted on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, the subject parcel does not contain ESHA. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.
99

D. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
There are no native trees on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 do not apply.

E. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. The subject property is not visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. Therefore, the scenic visual and hillside resource protection findings contained in LIP chapter 6 are not applicable.

F. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
The proposed project does not include a land division or multi-family development.

Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 do not apply.

G. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity.

The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD reviewed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9. The required findings are made as follows:

Finding 1. The project, as proposed, will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The applicant submitted geotechnical and engineering reports and addenda prepared by Gold Coast Geoservices, Inc. These reports are on file at City Hall. In these reports, sitespecific conditions are evaluated and recommendations are provided to address any pertinent issues. Potential hazards analyzed include geologic, seismic and fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, groundwater, wave uprush and tsunami, and flood and fire hazards.

Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City geotechnical staff, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental 100

Health Administrator, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The project, including the new OWTS, will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

The project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical report and conditions required by the City geotechnical staff, City Public Works Department and the LACFD, including foundations, AOWTS and drainage. As such, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood or any other hazards.

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards and development of a residence on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an impact on wildfire hazards.

The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the state so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As previously stated in Section A, Finding 3, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. 101

Finding 4. There are no alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

As previously discussed in Section A, Findings 3 and Section G, Finding 1, there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified Malibu LCP.

As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

H. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
The Shoreline and Bluff Development Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications that include development on a parcel located along the shoreline as defined by the LCP. The project site is not located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or blufftop fronting the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

I. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
LIP Section 12.4 requires public access for lateral, bluff-top, and vertical access near the ocean, trails, and recreational access for the following cases:

A. New development on any parcel or location specifically identified in the Land Use Plan or in the LCP zoning districts as appropriate for or containing a historically used or suitable public access trail or pathway.

B. New development between the nearest public roadway and the sea.

C. New development on any site where there is substantial evidence of a public right of access to or along the sea or public tidelands, a blufftop trail or an inland trail acquired through use or a public right of access through legislative authorization.

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

As described herein, the subject property and the proposed project do not meet any of these criteria in that no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property, and the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, or 102

on a bluff or near a recreational area. The requirement for public access of LIP Section

12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

J. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
This project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 15 do not apply.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department 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. The Planning Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PUBLIC NOTICE: On February 15, 2024, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 6).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommend approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21

2. Project Plans

3. Story Pole Photos - March 2024

4. Department Review Sheets

5. Public Correspondence

6. Public Hearing Notice
103
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-21

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. 23-019TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,270 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A 750 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, 900 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED SECOND UNIT, 500 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, 432 SQUARE FOOT YOGA STUDIO, SWIMMING POOL, GRADING,

LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE, AND ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 23-024 TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENCE IN EXCESS OF 18 FEET IN HEIGHT UP TO 24 FEET FOR A FLAT

ROOF, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 30053 HARVESTER ROAD (KENT)
The Planning Commission of the City Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On March 15, 2023, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23- 019, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet with a flat roof was submitted to the City for review. The application was routed to the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On November 1, 2023, a Notice of CDP Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On March 4, 2024, staff conducted a site visit to inspect the installation of story poles.

D. On November 30, 2023, the CDP application was deemed complete for processing.

E. On February 22, 2024, 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.

F. On March 18, 2024, 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission 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 104
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on March 18, 2024, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact below, for CDP No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot attached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road.

The project is consistent with the zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) requirements of the LCP. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies, inclusive of the requested site plan review. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, inclusive of the requested discretionary request.

2. The proposed development is consistent with existing development in the area and has been determined not to result in adverse impacts. Therefore, there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant benefit to the environment compared to the proposed project. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, with the inclusion of the SPR and is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

3. The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Thus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.

B. Site Plan Review Findings to Allow for Construction in Excess of 18 feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27)
SPR No. 23-024 allows construction of a new single-family residence in excess of the 18 feet in height limit established by LIP Section 3.6(E), with a maximum height of 24 feet for a flat roof. 105
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

1. The project has been reviewed, conditioned and approved for conformance with the LCP by all applicable City and County departments and was found to be consistent with the LCP, inclusive of the subject site plan review.

2. In February 2024, the applicant installed story poles and photo documented the story poles. Staff evaluated the project for conformance with City codes. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are developed with a mix of one and two-story single-family residences and accessory structures. As demonstrated with story poles, due to the size, shape and topography of the lot, the location f the proposed development will not be visible from any scenic road or located within primary views of neighboring properties. Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding build environment. Therefore, the portions of the structure exceed 18 feet in height are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.

3. The existing size and shape of the subject property limits visibility of the proposed development from Pacific Coast Highway or any scenic area as described in the LCP. Primary View Determinations within the area are not expected to be impacted by the proposed development.

4. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. The proposed project has received LCP conformance review from all applicable City departments and the LACFD and WD29. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County departments.

5. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the LCP in that it is consistent with the applicable residential land use designation and is consistent with all applicable development and design standards of the LCP and General Plan, inclusive of the associated discretionary requests. The proposed residence incorporates siting and design measures to minimize visual impacts and landform alteration.

6. Story poles were placed on the site in February 2024 to demonstrate the location, height and bulk of the proposed development and to aid the visual analysis of potential private and public view impacts. The proposed development will not significantly impede any private visually impressive views of the Pacific Ocean or other scenic areas indicated in the LCP or MMC.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

2. The proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
106
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

3. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. There are no feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project is not expected to have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23-019, and SPR No. 23-024 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the 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 following:
a. 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage;
b. 900 square foot attached second unit;
c. 500 square foot detached accessory garage;
d. 432 square foot yoga studio
e. Permeable driveway;
f. Swimming pool;
g. New landscaping; and;
h. OWTS;

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 March 4, 2024. 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.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions 107
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
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 shall digitally submit a complete set of plansto 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 expire 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.

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

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City 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 MMC and LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

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

12. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the property owner shall provide a copy of a valid operating permit pursuant to MMC Section 15.14.030 or an operating permit application fee receipt.

Cultural Resources

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 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. 108
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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.

Geology

15. 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.

16. 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.

Environmental Health

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

18. Final OWTS Plot Plan: 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).

19. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then 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). 109
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

20. 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.

21. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. The Whitson Engineers grading plans depict a new fill slope in the vicinity of the future leach trenches. Please discuss impact of the proposed grading on the OWTS design and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate. b. 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 drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; c. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment.

State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems; d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day 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
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18-inch by 22-inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

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

22. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the 110
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
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 Environmental Sustainability Department.

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

24. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. This shall be the same operations and maintenance manual submitted to the owner and/or operator of the proposed OWTS following installation.

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

26. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

27. 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 ESHA, if applicable.

28. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application.

Street Improvements

29. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inces of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.
111
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

30. Several private improvements are located within the City’s right-of-way, such as (but not limited to) landscaping, railroad ties, fencing. These improvements are required to be removed as part of this project and must be shown on the plans. The applicant shall place notes on the plans for the removal of existing encroachments within the City’s right-of-way.

Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the removal of the private improvements within the City’s right-of-way.

Grading / Drainage / Hydrology

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

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

33. 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 of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated; e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes;
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12- inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan; and
h. Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

34. 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, outlet, post-construction 112
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

35. 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.

36. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
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.

37. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but 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 (BMPs) 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. 113
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

38. 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.

39. 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 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.

40. 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.

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

42. 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.

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

44. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

45. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) d. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
114
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

46. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.3 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design BMPs;
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs;
d. Drainage improvements;
e. Methods for onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
f. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; g. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Building Safety Division and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. Once the plan is approved and stamped by the Public Works Department, the original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted prior to the Public Works Department approval of building plans for the project.

Water Quality / Water Service

47. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve letter from WD29 to the Planning Department indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.

Fire Department

48. The project will require fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi (pounds per square inch) for a one hour duration.

49. The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system.

Construction / Framing

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

51. 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.
115
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

52. 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.

53. 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 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.

54. 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.

Colors and Materials

55. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Retaining walls shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. The color of driveways and retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on all grading, improvement and/or building plans.

Lighting

56. Exterior lighting 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; 116
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
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.

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

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology/Landscaping

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

62. Prior to or at the time of Planning Final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

63. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Section 17.53.030).

The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Section 17.53.030. (form attached)

64. Prior to final plan check approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

65. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six (6) feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. Three sequential violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

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

67. Invasive plan species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited. 117
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

68. No non-native plan species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

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

70. Grading/ Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

71. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

72. Necessary boundary fencing of any single area exceeding ½ acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40 inches high, and have a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Feature

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

74. 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).

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

76. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Malibu Water Quality Ordinance, discharge of water from a pool / spa is prohibited. Provide information on the plans regarding the type of sanitation proposed for pool.
a. Ozonization systems are an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge of clear water from ozonization systems is not permitted to the street; b. Salt water sanitation is an acceptable alternative to chlorine. The discharge of salt water is not permitted to the street; and
c. Chlorinated water from pools or spas shall be trucked to a publicly-owned treatment works facility for discharge.

77. The discharge of chlorinated and non-chlorinated pool / spa water into streets, storm drains, creeks, canyons, drainage channels, or other locations where it could enter receiving waters 118
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
is prohibited.

78. 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.

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

Fencing and Walls

80. 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.

81. Necessary boundary fencing of a single area exceeding 0.5-acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

82. 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.

83. Construction fencing shall be installed within five feet of the limits of grading prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period (or until the fire protection wall is constructed) to protect the site’s sensitive habitat area.

Prior to Occupancy

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

85. 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.

86. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a final Waste Reduction and Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. The final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled, broken down by material types.

87. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to a final inspection by the Environmental Sustainability Department. 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 119
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
permit.

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

Deed Restrictions

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

90. 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. 56-60.

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

Fixed Conditions

91. This coastal development permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

92. 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 18th day of March, 2024. _______________________________________
KRAIG HILL Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LCP 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 10 120
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
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. 246.

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. 24-21 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
ATTACHMENT 3
140

BIOLOGY REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE09/20/2023 JOB ADDRESS: 30053 HARVESTER RD
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Steven Kent, Architect
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 11906 Gorham Ave
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 293-3222
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, attached garage, ADU, storage building, pool, NOWTS
Los Angeles, CA 90049
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-019
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Kaneca Pompey
TO:

The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed project design
(See Attached).

The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Requires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

Signature Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
10/5/23
X
141
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Steven Kent, Architect
[email protected]
Project Address: 30053 HARVESTER RD
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 23-019
Project Description: NSFR, attached garage, ADU, storage building, pool, NOWTS
Date of Review: October 5, 2023
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 8/29/23
Site Survey: 8/29/23
Landscape Plan: 9/20/23
Hydrozone Plan: 9/20/23
Irrigation Plan: 9/20/23
Fuel Modification Plan: 9/20/23
Grading Plan: 8/29/23
OWTS Plan: 8/29/23
Bio Assessment:

Bio Inventory: 6/28/23 (Edith Read)
Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews: 3/28/23 (Incomplete), 7/1/23 (Incomplete), 9/11/23 (Incomplete)

REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.

APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.

CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 142
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

DISCUSSION:

1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 334,507 gallons per year (gpy). The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 301,175 gpy. Therefore, the project meets the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

2. The biological inventory did not find any indications of streams of ESHA on or immediately adjacent to the project site. The biologist identified a sycamore and toyon on the adjacent property, but no native trees were identified on the property.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:

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

B. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

C. 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 Section 17.53.030). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Section 17.53.030. (form attached) D. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

For approval contact:

Roberto Perez Sandoval
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Paul Van Suchtelen
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-0209
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check. 143
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

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

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

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

H. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

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

J. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

K. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.

L. Necessary boundary fencing of any single area exceeding ½ acre shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40 inches high, and have a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

2. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
144
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
145

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 03/15/2023
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Steven Kent, Architect
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 11906 Gorham Ave
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 293-3222
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, attached garage, ADU, storage building, pool, NOWTS
Los Angeles, CA 90049
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-019
JOB ADDRESS: 30053 HARVESTER RD
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.

Conformance Review Incomplete for the City of Malibu LCP/LIP and MMC. The Planning stage review comments listed on the City of Malibu Environmental Health review sheet(s) shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.

OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
June 13, 2023
146

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-3356 www.malibucity.org
FROM:

TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 03/15/2023
The applicant must submit to the City of Malibu Environmental Health Specialist to determine whether or not an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) Plot Plan approval is required.

The Environmental Health Specialist may be contacted Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 am to 11:00 am, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 364.

Rev 141008
147
148
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
June 13, 2023

T:\Project Review\Harvester Rd\30053 Harvester Rd\CDP 23-019\230613_30053 Harvester Rd_CDP 23-019_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the subject development project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the project OWTS Plot Plan and associated construction drawings (during Building Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.

Conditions of Planning Conformance Review for Building Plan Check Approval:
1) OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final architectural and grading plans must show the proposed onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including the septic tank, present/future leach tranches, and all lines of connection to the residence. 2) Final Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Plot Plan: A final plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The plans must include all necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property, and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS Plot Plan shall show essential features of the OWTS, existing improvements, and proposed/new improvements. The plot plan must fit on an 11” x 17” sheet leaving a 5” left margin clear to provide space for a City-applied legend. 3) Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the OWTS. All plans and reports must be signed by a City Registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).

The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. The Whitson Engineers grading plans depict a new fill slope in the vicinity of the future leach trenches.

Please discuss impact of the proposed grading on the OWTS design and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate.
b. Required capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design 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. c. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including 149
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
June 13, 2023

T:\Project Review\Harvester Rd\30053 Harvester Rd\CDP 23-019\230613_30053 Harvester Rd_CDP 23-019_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsf). Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics.
e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). [Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
4) Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 5) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
6) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 7) City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 8) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
9) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
10) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
150
151
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: July 26, 2023 Review Log #: 5047
Site Address: 30053 Harvester Road
Lot/Tract/PM #: Planning #: CDP 23-019
Applicant/Contact: Steven Kent, [email protected] BPC/GPC #:

Contact Phone #: 310-293-3222 Fax #: Planner: Kaneca Pompey Project Type: New single-family residence and attached garage, detached ADU, detached garage/studio building, swimming pool and spa, grading, retaining walls, new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
Submittal Information
Consultant(s) / Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
Gold Coast Geoservices, Inc. (Hogrefe, CEG 1516; Vardeh, RCE 56992): 6-8-2023, 3-6-2023.

Gold Coast Geoservices, Inc. (Hogrefe, CEG 1516): 3-13-2023 Architectural plans prepared by Steven Kent Architects dated March 1, 2023.

Grading and Drainage plans prepared by Whitson Engineering Group dated May 23, 2023.

OWTS plot plan prepared by Gold Coast Geoservices, Inc. dated February 16, 2023.

Previous Reviews: 3-24-2023; Ref: Environmental Health Review Sheets dated 6-13- 2023 and 9-29-2022.

Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The residential development project is ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective, with the following comments to be addressed prior to building plan check stage completion.

The residential development project is NOT ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective.

The listed ‘Review Comments’ shall be addressed prior to acceptance.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review
Awaiting Building plan check submittal.

The plans are COMPLETE from a geotechnical perspective. Please review the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ and incorporate into Building Plan-Check submittals.

The plans are NOT COMPLETE from a geotechnical perspective. The listed ‘Building PlanCheck Stage Review Comments’ shall be addressed prior to Building Plan-Check Stage completion.

Project submittals were reviewed from a geotechnical perspective for conformance with applicable codes, 152
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
MAL6263 – 2 –
guidelines and standards of practice, including the following current City adopted standards:
• City of Malibu Local Coastal Program – Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan (LCP-LUP and LCP-LIP)
• Malibu Municipal Code – Title 15, Buildings and Construction • City of Malibu Guidelines for the Preparation of Geotechnical Reports and Procedures for Report Submittal (November 2013) referred to herein as Geotechnical Report Guidelines In the case of conflicting requirements between the Geotechnical Guidelines and any other referenced standards, the latest standard will apply. The Applicant is responsible for complying with the submittal requirements for all Planning variances, as appropriate; any questions regarding variances should be directed to the case Planner.

Remarks
The referenced response geotechnical report, architectural plans, grading and drainage plans, and OWTS plot plan were reviewed by the City’s consultants from a geotechnical perspective. The proposed development includes constructing a new 4,280 square foot two-story single-family residence and attached 600 square foot three-car garage with an 840 square foot basement, a 1,200 square foot two-story ADU, 500 square foot detached two-car garage with a 500 square foot studio/storage above, swimming pool and spa, decking and patios (1,000 square feet), and retaining walls.

Grading consists of 1,600 yards of R & R; 600 yards of cut and 150 yards of fill under structure; 75 yards of cut and 250 yards of fill for safety; 360 yards of cut and 535 yards of fill non-exempt; and 100 yards of export.

A new OWTS will be installed on the property that consists of a minimum 3,250-gallon septic tank and three 65-foot long x 3’ wide x 5’ deep leach lines with 3 feet of rock beneath the pipe and 100% expansion.

Coastal Development Permit Review Comments
No further comments.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

1. Please provide a plan check review fee of $1,179.00 for City geotechnical staff to review the plans upon Building Plan Check submittal.

2. Indicate the bearing material and depth for all foundation types on the foundation plans in accordance with recommendations by the Project Geotechnical Consultant.

3. Include the following note on all the foundation plans: “All foundation excavations must be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of reinforcing steel.”

4. The Project Geotechnical Consultant recommended verification of excavations during construction.

Please include the following note on the grading and foundation plans: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the excavations for the R & R grading and provide revised recommendations, as appropriate, if variations in the soils are encountered.”

5. The Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendation for moisture conditioning of subgrade soils prior to the placement of concrete shall be included as a note on the foundation plans.

6. Section 7.4 of the City’s geotechnical guidelines requires a minimum thickness of 10 mils for vapor barriers beneath slabs-on-grade. The Project Geotechnical Engineer has recommended that the vapor barrier be a minimum thickness of 15 mils, conform to ASTM E1745 Class A requirements, and be installed in accordance with ASTM E1643. Building plans shall reflect the Consultant’s recommendation.

7. Please include a detail in the swimming pool plans for the recommended hydrostatic relief valve. 153
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
MAL6263 – 3 –

8. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built compaction report prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the City for review. The report must include the results of all density tests, a dry density and optimum moisture maximum curve(s), a map depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, and the expansion index of the sandstone bedrock used for foundation embedment. Geologic conditions exposed during grading must be depicted on an as-built geologic map. This comment must be included as a note on the grading plans.

9. One set of final electronic OWTS plans incorporating the Project Geotechnical and Environmental Health Specialists’ recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and e-stamped and e-signed by the Project Engineering Geologist. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations and items in this review sheet.

10. One set of electronic grading, retaining wall, swimming pool and spa, ADU, garage/studio, and residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant's recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and estamped and e-signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Civil/Geotechnical Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants' recommendations and items in this review sheet. Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.

Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to the City’s geotechnical consultants listed below.

Geotechnical Engineering Review by: _______________________________ 7-26-2023 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-23 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
Engineering Geology Review by: 7-26-2023
Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-30-24 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (408-656-3210)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.

154
City of Malibu
– GEOTECHNICAL –

NOTES FOR BUILDING PLAN-CHECK
The following standard items should be incorporated into Building Plan-Check submittals, as appropriate:

1. One set of grading, retaining wall, swimming pool, ADU, garage/studio, and residence plans, incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet, must be submitted to City geotechnical staff for review. Additional review comments may be raised at that time that may require a response.

2. Show the name, address, and phone number of the Project Geotechnical Consultant(s) on the cover sheet of the Building Plans.

3. Include the following note on Grading and Foundation Plans: “Subgrade soils shall be tested for Expansion Index prior to pouring footings or slabs; Foundation Plans shall be reviewed and revised by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as appropriate.”

4. Include the following note on the Foundation Plans: “All foundation excavations must be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of reinforcing steel.”

5. The Foundation Plans for the proposed project shall clearly depict the embedment material and minimum depth of embedment for the foundations in accordance with the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations.

6. Show the onsite wastewater treatment system on the Site Plan.

7. Please contact the Building and Safety Department regarding the submittal requirements for a grading and drainage plan review.

8. A comprehensive Site Drainage Plan, incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations, shall be included in the Plans. Show all area drains, outlets, and non-erosive drainage devices on the Plans.

Water shall not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over descending slopes.

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

1. Grading Plans shall clearly depict the limits and depths of overexcavation, as applicable.

2. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built compaction report prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the City for review. The report must include the results of all density tests as well as a map depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, locations and elevations of all keyways and back drains, and locations and elevations of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. Geologic conditions exposed during grading must be depicted on an as-built geologic map. This comment must be included as a note on the grading plans.

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

1. Show retaining wall backdrain and backfill design, as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, on the Plans.

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence require separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety Department for permit information. One set of retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional concerns may be raised at that time which may require a response by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and applicant.
155

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO:

City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
REVISED DATE 06/22/2023
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Steven Kent, Architect
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 11906 Gorham Ave
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 293-3222
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, attached garage, ADU, storage building, pool, NOWTS
Los Angeles, CA 90049
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-019
JOB ADDRESS: 30053 HARVESTER RD
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.

The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
6/27/2023
156
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Nadia Fahoum, Assistant Civil Engineer
Date: June 26, 2023
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above-referenced project.

Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

1. This project proposes constructing a new driveway within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway.

The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inch of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

2. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
• Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
• Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
• Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading 157
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources

3. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with the City’s LIP Section

8.3. A note shall be placed on the project that addresses this condition.

4. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
• Public Works Department General Notes
• 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).
• The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated.
• The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan.
• If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
• If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
• Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
• Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

5. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

STORMWATER

6. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
158
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance 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.

7. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development.

The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.

8. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site.

The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
• Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
• Source Control BMP’s
• Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. • Drainage Improvements
159
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
• A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
• A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. • The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.

MISCELLANOUS

9. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

10.The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
• The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
• There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and • The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
3/4/24
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Steven Kent and the building of his new home on Harvester Rd. We've known Steve for over 10 years. Craig met Steve through mutual friends and over the years has traveled extensively with him. We have all formed a very close friendship. We have also been fortunate enough to have him design two homes for us. One is a fire rebuild on Harvester, very near to Steve’s project, that will soon be our new family home. He has also designed a new home for my parents on Trancas Beach. Both home designs are exquisite.

We have seen the plans and renderings for Steve’s new home. We feel he is building a beautiful house appropriate for the Malibu Park neighborhood. I have lived in Malibu Park my entire life and my husband and I have raised our children here for the last 30 years. As long time Malibu residents, specifically Malibu Park, we appreciate the more rural aspects of our community. Steve been incredibly sensitive to keep his projects as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and to make sure they fit into the natural surroundings of Malibu Park. We believe that Steve’s house will complement the surrounding areas.

We hope you support this project, which will enable his family to live in our beautiful neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Craig and Stacy Clunies-Ross
Harvester Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
168
169