Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, April 28, 2025 (part 6 of 6)

b. Site Survey.

A site survey with the following items:

Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.

North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.

Indicate topography by showing contours.

Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.

Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.

The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:

1. The position of the property lines.

2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.

3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.

4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.

5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the proposed property line.
787

6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.

7. The position of the OWTS as related to the watershed on Mr. Kent’s parcel.

Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.

To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the on-site survey markers must be properly positioned and marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our surrounding environment.

I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by positioning survey markers in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined on page 3 of the CDP - 8. Survey.

Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
788
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org June 2, 2023
Steve Kent
Reference: 30053 Harvester Road, Malibu, CA 90265
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) No. 23-019
New Single-Family Residence, attached garage, detached ADU, detached Yoga studio, pool & spa, NOWTS,
Dear Mr. Kent,
On March 15, 2023, the application listed above was submitted to the City of Malibu’s Planning Department for processing. The subject property is located at 30053 Harvester Road (APN 4469-009-010) and is zoned Rural Residential District- Two Acre (RR-2). The subject property is not within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as depicted on the Post – Local Coastal Program Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map of the City of Malibu.

Our Planning Department Staff has completed an initial review of the application and determined on June 2, 2023, that the application submitted was INCOMPLETE and will require further information. To continue processing the application, please address the following items.

1. Staff needs to conduct a site visit to document existing conditions.

Zoning Conformance

1. Based on the information provided, the project appears to exceed the following zoning requirements:
i. Height maximum [LIP §3.6(E)(1-2)]: The base maximum height is 18 feet; however, this can be increased to 24 feet (flat roof) or 28 feet (pitched roof) subject to an approved site plan review (SPR). A pitched roof has a minimum 3:12 pitch. An SPR was not requested as part of the CDP application and proposed/modified roof heights exceed the maximum height. Please revise to 18 feet or request an SPR for heights above 18 feet. If an SPR is requested, please submit the SPR fee of $2,658 and written findings in LIP §13.27.5. ii. Setback Requirements [LIP §3.6(F)]: It is unclear if the proposed plans do meet the setback requirements Pursuant to LIP Section 3.6(F). Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15 percent of the lot depth or 15 feet whichever is greater. Provide setback of rear property line to stairs leading to guest suite
iii. Two-thirds rule [LIP §3.6(K)(2)]: The project appears to exceed the two-thirds requirement. In no event can the floor area above 18 feet exceed the floor area below 18 feet. Generally, this is satisfied when demonstrated that the second floor area is two-thirds of the first floor area below.
789
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
iv. Site of Construction [LIP §3.6(J)]: The plans show proposed development on slopes greater than 3:1. All development on slopes greater than 3:1 but less than 2.5:1 require a Site Plan Review (SPR). Development on slopes steeper than 2.5:1 requires a VAR. Please revise the plans to remove development on slopes or request the appropriate discretionary request. v. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Size: The 1,200 square foot ADU proposed is more than the 900 square feet allowed under LIP Section 3.6.
vi. Lot Legality: The site is vacant and proposed to be developed. The current Assessor’s parcel map shows some irregularities with the lot. You will need to apply for a Certificate of Compliance (COC) to legalize the lot before it can be developed.

Documentation
To submit revised plans and documents in response to this letter, please submit through the Planning Department’s Online Portal at www.MalibuCity.org/PlanningSubmittalPortal. Upon receiving your request to submit, the Submittal Administrator will send a link to you to submit documents. Once documents are received, fees will be calculated, which can be paid online.

2. Full Title Reports are required for projects proposed on vacant land. The Title Report should contain information regarding a COC for the parcel. Should the Title Report not contain COC information, please submit evidence that the parcel is a legal parcel. If no COC exists for the parcel a COC can be applied for as part of the Planning application. Please contact your Planner immediately with questions regarding the COC application process. Please note that this process can take a substantial amount of time and should be started if it hasn’t been already.

3. A Will Serve Letter is required for all new construction, including additions and swimming pools.

Submit a Will Serve Letter from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29. This office is located at 23533 Civic Center Way, Malibu, California 90265. Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 has counter hours Monday through Thursday from 8:00AM to 11:00AM and on Fridays from 8:30AM to 11:00AM and may be reached at (310) 317-1388.

4. Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate. Please find, complete, and return the Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate for the grading or excavation the foundation of the proposed project will necessitate.

5. The proposed project includes development over 18 feet in height. Pursuant to MMC Section

17.62.040(A)(1) a site plan review is required for development over 18 feet in height with a maximum height of up to 24 feet with a flat roof or 28 feet with a pitched roof. To apply for a site plan review please submit the following items to the Planning Department during public counter hours:
a. A form of payment for $3,329.00.

Plan Revisions
Plan Submittals: Plans shall be grouped and named by discipline (e.g. architectural, grading, civil, etc.). • 24” x 36” size digital set dimensioned to ¼” = 1’ or ⅛” = 1’ scale

6. Cover Sheet
790
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
a. Within the project description, include all proposed development, for example, swimming pool, spa, ground mounted pool-equipment, pool equipment enclosure, yoga studio accessory building, wood deck, and safety fence.
b. List the General Plan Land Use Designation for the parcel. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Rural Residential – Two Acre (RR-2).
c. Revise the total development square footage (TDSF) calculation on the cover sheet. Refer to the enclosed TDSF calculation sheet for further direction.
d. Revise the breakdown of the impermeable coverage. Impermeable coverage is anything that water cannot “permeate” through. This includes, but is not limited to, building footprints, driveways, walkways, patios, decks surrounding pools, etc. Swimming pools and spas are not counted in impermeable coverage calculations. Refer to the enclosed impermeable coverage calculation sheet for further direction.

7. Site Plan
a. Indicate the type of materials that will be used for the deck surrounding the pool and structures. b. Pool Equipment/Enclosure: pursuant to LCP LIP Section 3.5.3(B)(8)(a), Accessory Structures and Equipment located in the rear and side yards subject to the following limitations: Ground mounted pool and air conditioning equipment must be screened by a solid wall or fence on all sides, except in cases where the equipment is located next to a dwelling, in which case the equipment must be screened on the three sides not adjacent to the dwelling. Clearly show the location of the proposed pool equipment screening on the plans.
c. Depict the location of proposed ground mounted equipment, if any. d. Depict the setback stairs behind the primary residence garage will be from rear property line.

8. Survey
a. Site Survey. The site survey needs to include topography showing approximate contours throughout the property.
b. Submit a site survey with the following items:
i. Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.
ii. North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership. iii. Indicate topography by showing contours.
iv. All easements, OTDs, deed restrictions, and description of adjacent uses. v. Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground. vi. Location of the existing OWTS
i. Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.

9. Color Coded Slope Analysis
791
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023
a. To verify that this project does not qualify for the Hillside Residential Development Standards (MMC 17.02.060 – Definition and MMC 17.40.040(A)(20)), please submit a color coded slope analysis based on 10 foot contour lines. You only need to show two categories (> than 30% slopes and < 30% slopes). If development is proposed on slopes steeper than 30%, an SPR can be applied for to exempt the project from the Hillside Standards given the fact that the project will not be visible from a scenic area.
b. Show the proposed scope of work on each slope analysis. The regular slope analysis (nonhillside) should use 5 foot contours.

10. Floor Plans
a. Revise second floor plans to comply with two-thirds rule b. Remove sink from guest suite living area
c. The basement lightwell does not appear meet the City’s basement policy attached. Please revise accordingly.

11. Roof Plan
a. Any new roof must have at least a 3:12 slope to be considered pitched. Indicate the proposed pitch of roofs.

12. Elevations
a. Pursuant to M.M.C. Section17.40.040(2), every residence shall have an exterior siding of brick, wood, stucco, metal, concrete or other similar material, except that reflective, gloss, polished and/or roll-formed type metal siding is prohibited. Revise the plans to note all metal being used will be non-reflective and non-glossy.
b. Revise section drawings to include dimensions from the top of roof to the lowest grade. c. Provide the dimensions and elevations of the pool equipment and screening materials. d. Provide a detail of the proposed safety fence, gate, and footings if applicable.

13. Outdoor Lighting Plan
a. Provide an outdoor lighting plan that complies with the City of Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance and includes a site plan for the proposed exterior lighting and manufacture specifications containing the Kelvin and Lumens counts and exhibits showing the outdoor light fixture.

Outstanding Agency Approvals

14. Approval from the City Environmental Health Administrator is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements or review status.

15. Approval from the City of Malibu Public Works Department’s Senior Civil Engineer is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status. 792
CDP No. 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
April 27, 2023

16. Approval from the City Biologist is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status.

17. Approval from the City Geologist is required. Please contact the department for submittal requirements and review status.

18. Approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department is required. I have attached the Fire Department referral sheet, the contact information can be found at the bottom of the attached referral.

19. Approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 is required. I have attached the Waterworks District referral sheet, the contact information can be found at the bottom of the attached referral.

Further Processing

20. Notice of Coastal Development Permit Posting Affidavit. The notice is available for pickup at the front counter, please complete and return the Notice of Coastal Development Permit Posting Affidavit, prepared for the subject application, any time during the Planning Department’s Public Counter Hours.

The Planning Department’s Public Counter Hours are Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 12:30pm.

21. Upon approval from all interdepartmental specialists, a Story Pole Plan must be submitted showing the location and heights of all proposed new structures. Please coordinate the timing and submittal of your plan with your Planner.

22. Certified property owner and occupant addresses will be required upon approvals from the interdepartmental specialist. Please coordinate with your Planner on the timing of the mailing labels.

Certified property owner and occupant addresses. Property owner and applicant addresses on mailing labels will not be accepted. Mailing addresses and radius maps shall be submitted in digital format.

Following are the guidelines:
▪ The addresses of the property owners and occupants within the mailing radius shall be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The radius map (8½” x 11”) shall show a 500 foot radius from the subject property and must show a minimum of 10 developed properties. A digital copy of the map shall be submitted on the same cd as the mailing addresses. ▪ The spreadsheet shall have the following column headers in row one: 1) name, 2) address, 3) city, state & zip code, and 4) parcel (for APN). The owners should be listed first followed by the occupants. The project applicant’s mailing address should be added at the end of the list. ▪ An additional column for “arbitrary number” may be included if the supplied radius map utilizes such numbers for the purpose of correlating the addressee to their map location.

Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of revised plans and/or new information. If new materials are not submitted within 45 days, staff may take action to close out the application due to inactivity.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 568-1010, extension 2752 or at [email protected] Sincerely,
Kaneca Pompey
Kaneca Pompey
Contract Planner
793
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward: Mr. Kent's reliance on a degraded chainlink fence used as a survey marker and as a property line. This is unacceptable.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’ has not fully comply with the city’s requirements. As a resulted this is a misrepresentation of the impact of the proposed land development approved to the Planning Commission in March 2024. Within the CDP that was issued, in a letter June 2, 2023, on the 3rd page, it states Mr. Kent's site must be surveyed...with all site markings.

The omission of property survey markers led to an incomplete assessment of the fence line, watershed route and native vegetation growing on Mr. Kent's property and locations of the construction site from the neighbors property. The city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information without a completed on-site survey and survey markers which will indicate the property lines.

Page 3 ends

8. Survey
b. Site Survey.

A site survey with the following items:

Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.

North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.

Indicate topography by showing contours.

Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.

Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.

The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:

1. The position of the property lines.

2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.

3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.

4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.

5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the property line.

6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
794
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.

Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road

795
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Gail Duncan; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Rd / CDP 23-019 - City Council Notice of Public Hearing - April 28, 2025 Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 4:15:57 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image006.png
image005.png
image004.png
image001.png
30053 Harvester_AP of CDP 23-019_PHN.pdf
image002.png
REQUEST for Survey Marker.pdf
Hello again Maureen,
May I please bring to your attention again, this letter send this past week address the lack of on-site survey markers on the Kent property 30053 Harvester Rd, which is under APPEAL.

Thank you for attention,
Dawn N Ericson
On Apr 3, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Gail Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:

You have received this email because you are on file with the City of Malibu Planning Department as an interested party for a project to be considered at the April 28, 2025 City Council meeting.

On April 28, 2025, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the below item. Please see the attached public hearing notice for the City Council Hearing date/time and project details.

Appeal Nos. 24-004 and 24-005 of Coastal Development Permit No. 23- 019
For more information, you may contact the case planner listed on the notice, or visit
https://www.malibucity.org/
Sign up for the City of Malibu’s e-notifications to stay up-to-date on emergency and traffic alerts, public meetings and City events at www.malibucity.org/news.

Regards,
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
796
797
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Gail Duncan; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: 30053 Harvester Rd / CDP 23-019 - City Council Notice of Public Hearing - April 28, 2025 Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 4:15:57 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image006.png
image005.png
image004.png
image001.png
30053 Harvester AP of CDP 23-019 PHN.pdf
image002.png
REQUEST for Survey Marker.pdf
Hello again Maureen,
May I please bring to your attention again, this letter send this past week address the lack of on-site survey markers on the Kent property 30053 Harvester Rd, which is under APPEAL.

Thank you for attention,
Dawn N Ericson
On Apr 3, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Gail Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:

You have received this email because you are on file with the City of Malibu Planning Department as an interested party for a project to be considered at the April 28, 2025 City Council meeting.

On April 28, 2025, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the below item. Please see the attached public hearing notice for the City Council Hearing date/time and project details.

Regards,
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
798
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward: Mr. Kent's reliance on a degraded chainlink fence used as a survey marker and as a property line. This is unacceptable.

Page 3 ends

8. Survey
b. Site Survey.

A site survey with the following items:

Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.

North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.

Indicate topography by showing contours.

Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.

Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.

The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:

1. The position of the property lines.

2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.

3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.

4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.

5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the property line.

6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.
799
Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.

Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road

800
From: Steve Kent
To: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein Cc: Tyler Eaton; Patricia Salazar; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 9:43:58 AM
Attachments: SP letter 3.29.25.pdf
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
It has come to our attention that the Philipsons are complaining about the story poles. For the record, the story poles were erected in full compliance with the City of Malibu approved plans, certified by our licensed surveyor, verified by city planning and seen in person by all five planning commissioners prior to our hearing last year.

The eighteen foot height and one-foot increments were clearly marked as evidenced by the attached photos. I met with Andrea Philipson prior to the hearing and specifically pointed out to her the eighteen foot height on the pole closest to her house, but perhaps she has forgotten in the year that has elapsed since the Philipsons filed their appeal.

Here is yet another example of the neighbor’s frivolous claims wasting all of our time.

Best,
Steven Kent

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:18 AM Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 12:15:28 AM
To: Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Did this come to you've. Are we good on acknowledging an appeal? Can't recall but I think I sent this on... Thanks! M
Get Outlook for iOS
801
From: andrea slosberg-philipson >
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 11:02:55 AM
To: Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>; Joseph Toney <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Paul Philipson >
Cc: Jo Drummond ; Jo Drummond
< >; Dawn Ericson >; Charlotte
Frieze < >; Dominique Navarro < >
Subject: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, I am writing to formally address the upcoming appeal on April 28, 2025, regarding my neighbor’s building plan application and to highlight an important issue that must be resolved before the process moves forward.

It has come to our attention that the applicant’s story pole installation does not fully comply with the city’s requirements. In fact, this resulted in a grave misrepresentation of the impact of the structure being proposed to the Planning Commission in March 2024. The required 18-foot height markings were not applied to all poles, which means the true height of the proposed structure over 18 feet was not properly indicated. The omission led to an incomplete assessment of our Primary View Determination (PVD) and the city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information.

The story pole plan clearly outlines the following requirements:
“The top one foot of the story poles shall be painted with clearly visible black paint.

Markings shall also be made at 18 feet above finished or natural grade, whichever results in a lower building height, and at one-foot increments above 18 feet. Bright orange construction mesh, approximately one foot in width, shall be placed connecting poles to show all proposed roof and ridgelines.” Currently, the installation does not meet these specifications, which is crucial given the significant disagreement over the Primary View Determination. To ensure a fair and accurate visual analysis, the story poles must be properly marked. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed development on our view and the surrounding environment.

Without the required markings and mesh, it is impossible to fully assess the visual and environmental effects of the proposed project. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Department require the applicant to correct this issue by installing the story poles in full compliance with the city’s specifications, as outlined in the story pole plan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.
802
Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
This is the current state of the story poles which have been out of compliance for the entire time the proposed plan has been in review.
803
S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T 310.293.3222 StevenKentAIA.com March 29, 2025
Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. Story Poles
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
It has come to our attention that the Philipsons are complaining about the story poles. For the record, the story poles were erected in full compliance with the City of Malibu approved plans, certified by our licensed surveyor, verified by city planning and seen in person by all five planning commissioners prior to our hearing last year.

Here is yet another example of the neighbor’s frivolous claims wasting all of our time.

Best,
Steven Kent
804
805
806
From: Steve Kent
To: Maureen Tamuri
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Tyler Eaton; Patricia Salazar
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:06:38 AM
Attachments: Elevation.pdf
Good Morning Maureen,
In response to the recent accusations from the Philipsons, I would like you to know that the story poles remain in conformance to the approved plans. I met the surveyor at our property last Friday, and we verified that the poles still have the same white tape at the 18 ft. height and the black marks at one-foot increments (the same as shown in the photos I previously sent).

Unfortunately, it appears that the neighbors only sent photos of the poles under 18 feet. I am not sure if this was intentional, or if they still do not understand that only a few of the poles are taller than 18 feet. This is because 98% of the building is less than 18 feet and only a very small portion of our second story roof extends above that height (please see attached elevation drawing).

Last year prior to our planning commission hearing, Tyler Eaton met with the Phillipsons and determined that none of their primary views were obstructed by the portion of our house above 18 ft. Of course, at that time the white tape markings at the 18 ft. height were necessary for Malibu city planning to make the negative Primary View Determination. These markings were reviewed in detail with Andrea Philipson, both with Tyler Eaton and myself in separate site meetings. Since that time, the Philipsons have had over one year to study the story poles in detail.

When the city council members visit our property in the upcoming weeks before the appeal hearing, they will see for themselves that the story poles are in full compliance with the Malibu city codes, as is our proposed house.

Best,
Steve

S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T
310.293.3222
www.StevenKentAIA.com
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 2:44 PM Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

Get Outlook for iOS
807
From: andrea slosberg-philipson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 5:25 PM
To: Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>; Joseph Toney <[email protected]>; Paul Philipson ; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; C Frieze ; Dawn Ericson >; Dominique
Navarro >; Jo Drummond >;
Frank Angelat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with Story Pole Installation Requirements
Hi Maureen,
I appreciate the prompt response and the orange plastic was replaced on the story poles at 30053 Harvester. However, I’ve noticed that the markings at 18 feet and above are not visible on all poles, as required by the city’s code. Given that we have a recorded Primary View Determination (PVD) that is directly impacted by these markings, it is crucial that we proceed with a full evaluation.

Unless there are clear markings showing the true height and the impact of the variance being requested, we cannot move forward with a comprehensive assessment. The analysis must be based on the real-life impact of the structures, not just the information presented on paper.

Please let me know how we can address this issue and ensure the markings comply with the necessary requirements. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Best,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 3:43 PM andrea slosberg-philipson < > wrote:

Hi Maureen,
I want to confirm you received my email below because the Appeal date is fast approaching. We would also like to request the city biologist come out and assess the eucalyptus trees the applicant is proposing to cut down for this build and the city's adherence to ordinace 461.

We have other concerns to review before the Appeal, so can you let us know how to proceed.

Best,
808
809
will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application.

Sincerely,
Andrea Slosberg Philipson
Harvester Rd
Malibu, Ca. 90265
This is the current state of the story poles which have been out of compliance for the entire time the proposed plan has been in review.
810
811
From: Steve Kent
To: Rebecca Evans; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring; Bruce Silverstein; Tyler Eaton; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: RE: City Council Appeal 30053 Harvester Rd. - Compliance with CDP- Survey Markers Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:27:55 AM
Attachments: Survey letter 4.2.25.pdf
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
Unfortunately, our neighbor Dawn Ericson has forgotten what transpired prior to our last hearing and has thrown another red herring. Ms. Erickson made the same allegations regarding our survey last year and now it is déjà vu all over again. Of course, our surveyor (ironically the same surveyor hired by Ms. Erickson for her property) completed the survey in compliance with all of the Malibu city requirements.

Last year prior to the hearing, Ms. Ericson alleged that our survey was not accurate to the fence line because her “landscaper” checked it with his phone app and thought it was four feet off. We then had to pay the surveyor to come back out to verify the property corners, the fence line and the oak tree that was on her property (please see the attached stamped survey from last year that was an exhibit during our planning commission hearing).

Despite Ms. Ericson’s references to native trees on her property, there is only one protected tree that is located far away from any proposed structures. In fact, the most predominant feature of the drainage gully bordering our property is a row of enormous eucalyptus trees that likely caused Ms. Ericson’s house to burn in the Woosley fire.

The Malibu city biologist has made three separate written determinations that there is no ESHA on Ms. Ericson’s property and that the smaller unprotected native trees appeared to be planted by Ms. Ericson. Our eminently respected biologist, Edith Read who has been working in Malibu for the past 30 years, also concluded that neither property is within environmentally sensitive habitat. And of course, there is no mapped ESHA on either property.

Prior to the planning commission hearing last year, it became apparent that Ms.

Ericson tried to create an imaginary ESHA in order to justify to the planning department pushing her house closer to her West neighbor before building her own home. The former planning director, Richard Mollica, explained during our planning commission hearing that Ms. Ericson submitted a plan by her landscape architect showing the supposed “ESHA” that has never been mapped by the city or the Coastal Commission. Richard Mollica explained that Ms. Ericson’s request to push her house closer to her neighbor’s property was subsequently rejected by city planning.

Now Ms. Ericson is trying to use the same false claims of ESHA to stop us from building our home, which is in full compliance with the Malibu LIP. Every time the neighbors throw out these bogus allegations, we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on professional consultants and additional city fees to refute complete nonsense.
812
813
The omission of property survey markers led to an incomplete assessment of the fence line, watershed route and native vegetation growing on Mr. Kent's property and locations of the construction site from the neighbors property. The city's staff report was based on partial and incomplete information without a completed on-site survey and survey markers which will indicate the property lines.

Page 3 ends

b. Site Survey.

A site survey with the following items:

Property boundaries with bearings, distance, monuments, iron rods, or other markers shown; show existing and proposed lot lines.

North, date, scale, dimensions, and record boundaries of ownership.

Indicate topography by showing contours.

Location of trees at least four inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet above ground.

Location of the existing OWTS
Wet-stamped and wet-signed by a registered civil engineer or surveyor.

The survey markers will clearly provide answers to these following questions:

1. The position of the property lines.

2. The position for the proposed fence location along the east property line.

3. The position of the proposed construction sites and distance from the property line and watershed zone.

4. The position of a 12' diameter Coastal Live Oak in relationship to the construction site.

5. The position and numbers of native toyon, coastal live oak and walnut trees (all protected species), which may be removed or uprooted during construction along the proposed property line.

6. The position of the watershed as it passes over the property line near Harvester Road.

7. The position of the OWTS as related to the watershed on Mr. Kent’s parcel.

Currently, the APPEAL hearing, without survey markers denies crucial information about the property rights of the neighbor's tangent parcel.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that the Planning Department will adhere to the city's regulations, thereby facilitating a fair and transparent evaluation of the proposed application by requiring survey markers. 814
Dawn N Ericson
Harvester Road
815
April 2, 2025
Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. Survey (and Imaginary ESHA)
Dear Members of the Malibu City Council,
Unfortunately, our neighbor Dawn Ericson has forgotten what transpired prior to our last hearing and has thrown another red herring. Ms. Ericson made the same allegations regarding our survey last year and now it is déjà vu all over again. Of course, our surveyor (ironically the same surveyor hired by Ms. Ericson for her property) completed the survey in compliance with all of the Malibu city requirements.

Prior to the planning commission hearing last year, it became apparent that Ms. Ericson tried to create an imaginary ESHA in order to justify to the planning department pushing her house closer to her West neighbor before building her own home. The former planning director, Richard Mollica, explained during our planning commission hearing that Ms. Ericson submitted a plan by her landscape architect showing the supposed “ESHA” that has never been mapped by the city or the Coastal Commission. Richard Mollica explained that Ms. Ericson’s request to push her house closer to her neighbor’s property was subsequently rejected by city planning.
816
S T E V E N K E N T A R C H I T E C T 310.293.3222 StevenKentAIA.com Now Ms. Ericson is trying to use the same false claims of ESHA to stop us from building our home, which is in full compliance with the Malibu LIP. Every time the neighbors throw out these bogus allegations, we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on professional consultants and additional city fees to refute complete nonsense.

We look forward to finally putting this matter to rest at the upcoming Malibu City Council hearing April 28th.

Best,
Steven Kent
817
FNC
FNC
FNC FNC WM SURVEYS INC. William L. Meagher 2747 Sherwin Ave. #12 Ventura, Ca. 93003 (805) 677-4850 NORTH 30053 HARVESTER RD. MALIBU, CA 90265 TREE MAP E AGH ME .ND S OR EY VRU L L I MAI L DESNECI LN o. LA N A12 - R I F L E2S- 31O I A N A S O PET ELX FSC I RE I T CE W5 9 4 8 R 4 11 B23053 SCALE: 1" = 30' FENCE F
818
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 28, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference, for the project identified below.

APPEAL NOS. 24-004 and 24-005 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-21 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 saquare 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
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 30053 Harvester Rd / 4469-009-010 / Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) APPLICANT / OWNER: Steven Kent Architects / Steven Kent APPELLANTS: Dawn N. Ericson, Paul E Philipson, and Andrea Slosberg-Philipson APPLICATION FILED: March 15, 2023
APPEALS FILED: April 25, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY

THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD

BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MAUREEN TAMURI, Interim Planning Director Date: April 3, 2025 Exhibit M
819

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 5.B.

Supplemental
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 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal No. 24-004 and Appeal No. 24-005, and approving Coastal Development Permit (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 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).

DISCUSSION: The original staff report for this item was published on Friday, April 18, 2025. The staff report stated a supplemental report providing Exhibit A, Resolution No. 25- 17, will be provided under separate cover. Exhibit A, Resolution No. 25-17 is attached to this supplemental report.

EXHIBIT:

A. Resolution No. 25-17
City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

5.B.

RESOLUTION NO. 25-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU,

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL NO. 24-004 AND APPEAL NO. 24-005 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 GARAGE, 432 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED

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 City Council 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. The Planning Commission continued the item to the April 15, 2024 meeting so that staff could further evaluate issues raised at the meeting.

G. On April 15, 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. The Planning Commission found Exhibit A
Resolution No. 25-17

Page 2 of 20 ends

________________
the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approved CDP No. 23-019 and SPR No. 23-024.

H. On April 25, 2024, Appeal No. 24-004 and Appeal No. 24-005 were filed by the two immediate neighbors on either side, east and west, of the subject property.

I. On April 3, 2025, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

J. On April 28, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council 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 City Council 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. Appeal of Action.

The appellants contend that the Planning Commission’s decision is based on the findings or conditions not supported by evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings, lack of a fair or impartial hearing, and the decision was contrary to law. Based on the evidence in the record, as detailed below, in the agenda report, and at the hearing on the matter, the City Council has determined that the project does conform to the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), denying the appeals and approving the project. The Council find that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

The project site does not contain mapped Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) pursuant to the LCP’s ESHA maps. The closest LCP mapped stream is 900 feet away on either side of the subject property. 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 applicant has fulfilled the ESHA (Local Implementation Plan 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 City Council vetted all the evidence in the record including that of the appellant team and determined that no ESHA exists on the subject property.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 3 of 20 ends

________________
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 from CEQA, Sections15303(a) and (e) - New Construction.

The entire project is proposed within a two-acre convex development area as required by the LCP and MMC. There is no requirement and no ESHA on the property to perpetuate further clustering of the development as to what has been proposed. 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 neighbors who have located their homes near the edge of their lots to maximize views or enjoy other benefits.

A Primary View Determination (PVD) 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.” The portions of the project that block views of the Santa Monica Mountains are 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 applicant’s neighborhood character analysis studied the size, number of structures, and shape of the prosed development compared to other homes in the neighborhood. The analysis found that within a 500-foot radius of the project site, at least four properties have a Total Development Square Footage larger than the proposed development and one is of a similar size, within 150 square feet. The proposed project is not expected to be an outlier within the neighborhood as the project consists of multiple smaller elongated buildings, rather than one large structure.

Neighboring parcels share similar size, number, and look of buildings. As designed, the proposed project does not have an imposing appearance from any public viewing areas and is within the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

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.” While issues of concern were raised by the appellants, concrete facts are required. The appellants were granted a fair hearing and were 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 are cured by the action of the City Council on the appeal.

The projects complies with the requirements of the LCP and MMC. Based on the information provided within the agenda reports and this resolution, the City Council has found that the findings or conditions are supported by evidence and that the decision is supported by the findings, that there was a fair or impartial hearing, and that the decision was not contrary to law. Thus the Council finds to deny the appeals and approve the project.

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 28, 2025, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Resolution No. 25-17

Page 4 of 20 ends

________________
Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council adopts the findings of fact below, denies Appeal No. 24-004 and Appeal No. 24-005, approving CDP No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, singlefamily 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 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.

Alternatives were studied by the staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. There is no ESHA on the property and the project is expected to blend in with the surrounding environment.

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 and verified through site-specific biological studies and onsite 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 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.

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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 5 of 20 ends

________________

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 of the proposed development will not be visible from any scenic road or located within protected primary views of neighboring properties. Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment. Therefore, the project, and in particular 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. The evidence also demonstrates that Primary View Determinations within the area will not be impacted by the proposed development, and the portions of the project taller than 18 feet in height will not be visible from such locations.

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 of the 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 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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 6 of 20 ends

________________

3. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. There are no hazards imposed by the project with the inclusion of the conditions of approval and project recommendations from the technical experts. There are not alternatives that would substantially lessen hazards. The proposed project has received LCP conformance review from all applicable City departments and the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County departments.

4. There are no feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity. The proposed project has received LCP conformance approval from all applicable City departments and the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29. With the inclusion of all recommendations from the technical experts and by following the conditions of approval, the project will meet all requirements of applicable law.

5. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project is not expected to have adverse impacts on sensitive resources. There is no LCP designated ESHA on the property and the project has been designed to be in full compliance with State and local law as it applies to safety and impacts to sensitive resources.

SECTION 5. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby denies Appeal No. 24-004, Appeal No. 24-005, and approves CDP No. 23-019 and SPR No. 23- 024 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 6. 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 with a 970 square foot basement, 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;
Resolution No. 25-17

Page 7 of 20 ends

________________
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 datestamped 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.

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 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 digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. The CDP shall 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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 8 of 20 ends

________________

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.

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. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 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 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

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 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.

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 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 Resolution No. 25-17

Page 9 of 20 ends

________________
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 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).

19. 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.

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 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 Resolution No. 25-17

Page 10 of 20 ends

________________
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.

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: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)); and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in the use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair.

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

22. Proof of ownership of subject 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 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.

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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 11 of 20 ends

________________

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.

Street Improvements

28. 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 the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inches 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 / Drainage / Hydrology

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

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 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 as required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12- inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 12 of 20 ends

________________

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

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 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.

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:

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
Resolution No. 25-17

Page 13 of 20 ends

________________
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.

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 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.

38. 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.

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 of final grading.

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

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:

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 14 of 20 ends

________________
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.

44. 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

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 of the property to receive adequate water service.

Fire Department

46. The project will require fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 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
Resolution No. 25-17

Page 15 of 20 ends

________________

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.

50. 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.

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 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.

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 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

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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 16 of 20 ends

________________
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; 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 of any 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 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.

61. 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)

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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 17 of 20 ends

________________

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

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

68. 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.

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 of any single area exceeding ½ acre shall be of an open railtype 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

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 of the inner wall.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 18 of 20 ends

________________

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 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.

75. 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 is prohibited.

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

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 of two or more walls.

79. Necessary boundary fencing of a single area exceeding 0.5-acre shall be of an open railtype 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.

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 final Planning approval to ensure wildlife friendly fencing requirements have been met.

81. 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

82. 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.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 19 of 20 ends

________________

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 of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

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 of the certificate of occupancy.

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 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.

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 of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted thereunder.

Resolution No. 25-17

Page 20 of 20 ends

________________
SECTION 7. The City Council shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2025. _____________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 17, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Fire Recovery Work Session Agendas
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on which topics should be scheduled for upcoming Fire Recovery Work Sessions.

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

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

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

The next work session is tentatively scheduled for May 8, 2025. On April 14, 2025, the Council directed staff to schedule an item for the May 8, 2025 work session to discuss contracting with the County or State for rebuild permitting services. The Council can provide further direction to staff now on how to prioritize topics for upcoming work sessions.

ALTERNATIVES: If the Council determines it does not have a topic for the next work session, it can direct staff to cancel the meeting.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.A.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Susan Dueñas, Public Safety Director
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 3, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: School Resource Officer
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive a report on how a School Resource Officer could be provided to Malibu campuses; and 2) Provide direction to staff if appropriate.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List. At the Council’s direction, this project can be brought back at a future Strategic Planning meeting for prioritization.

DISCUSSION: On October 24, 2022, the City Council authorized the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Guidepost Solutions LLC for a Comprehensive School Safety Assessment. The assessment began in December 2022, and a draft report was provided to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in August 2023 for review. The City Council was provided a report on the assessment at the February 12, 2024, Regular City Council Meeting.

The assessment included all K-12 public schools in the City and extended beyond physical security and safety procedures to include a review and analysis of behavioral health programs, policies, and procedures. Based on this extensive research, the assessment included recommendations for improved physical security through:
• Access Control
• Visitor Management
• Video Surveillance
• Communications
City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.B.
1

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.
• Door hardware and window treatments
• Signage
• Fencing
• Traffic control
Although the assessment did not specifically recommend the addition of a School Resource Officer (SRO), it did outline the benefits of an SRO and the Executive Summary (Attachment 1) includes a recommendation to “continue discussions on having a school resource deputy.”
SROs are sworn officers assigned to a school or District on a long-term basis in a triad role as law enforcement officers, counselors, and educators. In addition, SROs work in collaboration with the school and the community as a resource for safety and security issues. SRO training is a 40-hour class that covers digital safety, human trafficking, mental health, and substance abuse, and they learn best practices for de-escalation, behavioral threat assessment, emergency operations planning, and armed assailant response.

Due to an ongoing moratorium on expanding Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) service contracts and the extreme staffing shortage LASD is experiencing, the addition of an SRO to the City’s existing contract is not possible. However, one option is to have one or more of the Special Assignment Deputies included in our existing contract reassigned to the schools. Special Assignment Deputies are flexible resources that do not respond to regular calls for service unless they are needed. This allows them to focus on specific issues and targeted enforcement.

The City’s current LASD service contract (Attachment 2) includes 5.39 Special Assignment Deputies. This number equates to approximately 4.5 deputies who provide 9,649 hours of service for the year. A small fraction of this (.533) is for a deputy from the Juvenile Intervention Unit (J-Team). They are responsible for all the investigations and follow-ups involving juvenile crimes at the schools and in Malibu. They respond to the schools if an incident occurs while they are on duty. They conduct parent/student PCH safety classes, threat assessments regarding school threats, and active shooter training. They are available by phone to school administration and staff during non-business hours.

The majority of the Special Assignment Deputies are currently assigned to various crime prevention missions including retail theft, homelessness, RV and parking enforcement, and supporting the detective bureau with follow-up investigation and targeted surveillance for crimes occurring in Malibu.

One or more of these deputies could be assigned to the schools. Although they are not currently trained as SROs, they could be trained for that function. However, reassigning these deputies would mean there would be less coverage to protect businesses and neighborhoods and to address important quality of life and crime issues. 2

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.

ATTACHMENTS: 1) School Safety Assessment Executive Summary 2) FY 24/25 Service Level Authorization

3 November 2023
2023 School Safety Assessment
Executive Summary
The City of Malibu, in collaboration with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), commissioned Guidepost Solutions LLC to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and thorough physical security program review of the four public school campuses in Malibu, which include Malibu Elementary School, Webster Elementary School, Malibu Middle School, and Malibu High School. It should be noted that this report specifically focuses on the Malibu public schools and not the entire Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

The purpose of the assessment was to identify opportunities for Malibu public schools to improve, grow, and strengthen its physical security program to better protect and serve its communities. It provides an expert third-party review of the existing security operations and shared insights on stakeholders' perspectives regarding safety and security.

The completed School Safety Assessment includes evaluations of physical security measures, security electronic systems, security staffing, security policies and procedures, stakeholder interviews, and 209 community surveys completed by staff, faculty, students, parents, guardians, and administrators. In addition, it identifies opportunities for improvement or enhancement and highlights existing strengths.

The following actions were among those suggested to increase public safety within and around Malibu’s public schools:
• Ensure compliance with traffic measures around the school site (i.e., ensuring that parents are dropping off/picking up in the correct areas, vehicles are not blocking exits, etc.) • Consistent location of emergency backpacks and supplies familiar to all staff • Stronger “Security culture” at all school sites (i.e., staff badges, empower staff to question unfamiliar people)
• Additional walkie-talkies and communication strategy coordination • Improved signage around campuses (i.e., restrooms for student use, classroom numbers, main entrance, wayfinding, visitor check-in area, speed limits) • Visitor management (i.e., meeting and escorting, removing paper screening) • Public Address system upgrades and regular tests
• Improved door routines (i.e., educating staff and students when to have doors closed or locked) • Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) backup system
• Secure fencing and covers around equipment, electric panels, and other areas of high interest • Update staff emergency operations handbooks
• Lock down button with notice to LASD
4 November 2023
• Perimeter upgrades (i.e., 8 feet fences, fence toppers, glass facades) • Continue discussions on having a school resource deputy • Expanded use of keyless technologies (and continued tech integration) • Implementation of Video Assessment and Surveillance System monitoring (i.e. cafeteria, library, front entry, exterior of each restroom)
• Upgrades to intrusion detection measures (i.e., glass break, motion detectors, intrusion alert panels)
• Upgrades to door hardware
• Speed controls, vehicle barriers, and coordinate parking in designated parking areas • Upgrades to exterior lighting
• Card readers, and intercoms at all pedestrian entry points • Automated electronic access gates
• Installation of window treatments to minimize visibility into instructional, office, and staff locations to make it difficult for an intruder to see into the room.

The Assessment prioritizes the findings and recommendations, including the recommendations identified above, into an outline that enables the school district to develop a phased approach to implementing improvements based on risk.

SMMUSD has already begun addressing the systemic, operational, and facility recommendations. The more complex recommendations will take time to implement.

To protect students and staff, this report is being kept confidential and will not be made available to the public.
5 6

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Reviewed by: Alexis Brown, Acting Assistant City Manager Date prepared: April 18, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Fire Rebuild Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on a potential position to support Fire Rebuild efforts, titled Fire Rebuild Manager or similar.

DISCUSSION: This item will be distributed under separate cover.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.C.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.

Supplemental
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Reviewed by: Alexis Brown, Acting Assistant City Manager Date prepared: April 17, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Fire Rebuild Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on a potential position to support Fire Rebuild efforts, titled Fire Rebuild Manager or similar.

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

Should direction be given to return with a funded position, additional appropriation will be required.

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

DISCUSSION: At the April 3, 2025, City Council Work Session, the Council directed staff to return with a discussion of a Rebuild Manager for the April 28, 2025, Regular meeting.

The Council also requested that community representatives provide a proposal outlining a road map, research, a description of the role, and case studies of other cities. The information provided by the community representatives is attached.

The community proposed position titled “Program Director-Fire Rebuilds,” outlines responsibilities such as:
• Serving as the primary liaison between homeowners, city officials, and agencies. • Reporting directly to the Malibu City Council.
• Operating initially under a three-month term with an evaluation for extension.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.C.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.

The community proposal emphasizes qualifications in construction, project management, and community engagement. It also provided Key Responsibilities, Functions, and examples of other cities and the position titles they used.

In cities operating under a Council-Manager form of government, such as Malibu, staff appointments and organizational structure fall under the purview of the City Manager, not the City Council directly. While the Council sets policy and strategic direction, operational oversight-including staffing decisions – is delegated to the City Manager. A Rebuild Manager would have authority granted by the City Manager and must report directly to the City Manager. A Rebuild Manager would be treated like a department head.

At the federal level, “czar” positions are often appointed by executive branches with a broader authority. At the local level, a Strong-Mayor form of government would function similarly to appoint such a position. However, in a Council-Manager form of government, the Council must coordinate with the City Manager to identify the appropriate structure for the appointment of this type of position.

The City Council has considered this type of position under different titles, such as Rebuild Manager or Liaison. In terms of rebuild and recovery after a disaster or crisis, the role often involves coordinating various recovery efforts, organizing resources, managing logistics, and ensuring that efforts are focused on rebuilding infrastructure including integration with residential lot pre-construction utility requirements, identifying and initiating processes/systems that support accelerated reviews and approvals, and enabling community restoration in a more resilient, sustainable, and efficient manner.

During the February 27, 2025, City Council meeting, staff presented a possible path forward with a radial org chart displaying a potential structure (see attached). The community input received to date appears to be describing a position that is more akin to a Rebuild Liaison who would engage and interface more directly with community groups and stakeholders in an organized fashion to better consolidate and unify areas that need focus or policy decisions of the Council. City Staff have engaged consulting firms to provide Advisory Services. Staff also see a functional manager position as being a city employee who is working with the Rebuild Center team on operational functions and organizational effectiveness. The community proposal describes the role of a liaison serving as a centralized point of contact. A Rebuild Liaison that coordinates amongst the point of contacts for each neighborhood and community group seems like a path that may best support the role of the community requests.

Should the Council wish to pursue additional positions, the format could be under three scenarios: City Employee, Consultant, or Volunteer. If an additional employee is to be added to the City Budget, staff will need to return with a position description and updated Authorized Position and Salary resolution. Any format will require a vetting process to

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.
ensure the right background and fit of the person filling the role. Any additional positions must still adhere to the Council-Manager form of government and work closely with the City Manager and City team.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Community Proposal: Summary MRTF – Program Director Fire Rebuilds

2. Radial Org Chart
Position Title: Program Director - Fire Rebuilds
Location: City of Malibu, California
Reports To: Malibu City Council
Term: 3-Month (Subject to Evaluation)
Position Summary
The Program Director - Fire Rebuilds will oversee all aspects of the fire rebuilding process following devastating wildfires. This pivotal role will report directly to the Malibu City Council and work in close partnership with the City’s Planning & Building leadership. The Program Director will serve as the primary liaison between homeowners, city officials, and relevant agencies, ensuring a streamlined, transparent, and community-focused reconstruction effort. This position is initially structured as a three-month assignment, with performance and need assessed at the term’s conclusion for potential extension.

The ideal candidate will bring extensive experience in residential construction, project management, and community engagement, with a proven ability to navigate complex regulatory environments and foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This role is critical to expediting recovery efforts, restoring neighborhoods, and enhancing the quality of life for Malibu residents.

Key Responsibilities
• Homeowner Engagement: Establish and lead dedicated core team of residents, architectural/engineering teams to assess needs, identify challenges, and develop tailored solutions for expediting reconstruction.
• City Rebuild Team Leadership: Establish and lead a dedicated core team of staff focused exclusively on fire rebuild efforts, ensuring efficient coordination and execution of tasks.
• Prioritization and Planning: Based on above, identify the list of most pressing priorities that are affecting the rebuild process.
• Community Adjudication: Form and oversee two-member adjudication panels in fire-affected neighborhoods to address specific community concerns and resolve disputes efficiently.
• Agency Coordination: Partner with local, state, and federal agencies to streamline permitting processes, eliminate administrative bottlenecks, and secure expedited approvals.
• Legal and Precedent Utilization: Leverage relevant legal precedents and best practices to support rebuilding efforts and ensure compliance with all regulations. • Transparency and Communication: Establish and maintain clear metrics, milestones, and an active web and social media presence to keep the community informed of progress and updates.
• Reporting: Provide regular updates and detailed reports to the Malibu City Council on rebuild progress, challenges, and proposed solutions.

How the Role Will Function
• Workshops: The Program Director will organize multiple workshops, bringing together City staff, experts, residents, and SMEs (e.g., architects, engineers) to tackle pressing rebuild issues. For example, a workshop on “Streamlining Permitting process” might result in a standardized checklist adopted citywide, reducing approval times. Outcomes will be documented and shared publicly. • City Council Engagement: When disputes arise—such as interpretation of Building Codes, the Program Director will draft concise proposals and submit them to the City Council for a vote. This ensures that unresolved issues are escalated efficiently rather than stalling progress.
• Dashboard Oversight: The Program Director will maintain an online dashboard updated weekly, featuring metrics like “Average Days to Permit Approval” or “Number of Homes Under Construction.” This tool will serve as both a community resource and an internal accountability mechanism.
• Bottleneck Resolution: Using data from the dashboard and feedback from homeowners, the Program Director will pinpoint delays (e.g., a backlog in environmental reviews) and propose actionable fixes, such as temporary staffing increases or agency liaisons, reporting outcomes to the Council monthly. • Resource Management: In partnership with the City Manager, the Program Director will assess staffing needs (e.g., hiring additional permit reviewers) and oversee training on rebuild-specific processes. Resources will be allocated dynamically based on project volume and priority areas.

Qualifications
• Experience: Significant experience in single-family residential (SFR) construction, with a strong preference for candidates who have led large-scale projects or organizations, ideally within large companies or similar high-stakes environments. • Leadership: Demonstrated ability to manage teams, coordinate multi-stakeholder initiatives, and drive results under tight deadlines.
• Community Engagement: Proven track record of working effectively with homeowners, community groups, and government agencies to achieve shared goals.
• Regulatory Knowledge: Familiarity with California building codes, fire recovery regulations, and permitting processes; experience navigating legal precedents is a plus.
• Communication: Exceptional verbal and written communication skills, with the ability to distill complex information into clear, actionable insights for diverse audiences.
• Problem-Solving: Pragmatic and innovative approach to addressing construction and administrative challenges in a post-disaster context. • Education: Bachelor’s degree in construction management, engineering, architecture, urban planning, or a related field preferred; equivalent professional experience will be considered.

Precedents and Success Models
While the specific appointment of a resident to a city-led fire rebuild oversight role is rare, there are notable precedents in California and the U.S. where community members or specialized directors have successfully driven post-disaster recovery efforts:
• Santa Rosa, California (Post-2017 Tubbs Fire): Following the destructive Tubbs Fire, Santa Rosa appointed a Recovery and Resilience Coordinator, a role filled by a local expert with deep ties to the community. This position oversaw rebuilding efforts, coordinated with homeowners and agencies, and expedited over 3,000 residential rebuild permits within two years. The model’s success stemmed from its community-centric approach and streamlined permitting, reducing rebuild timelines by an estimated 30% compared to pre-existing processes. • Paradise, California (Post-2018 Camp Fire): Paradise created a Rebuild Paradise Program, led by a director with extensive construction experience, who worked closely with the Town Council and residents. This initiative facilitated the reconstruction of over 1,500 homes by 2023, leveraging resident input and agency partnerships. The program’s success was attributed to its focus on transparency (e.g., public dashboards) and dedicated staff, which mirrors the proposed Malibu role.
• Boulder, Colorado (Post-2021 Marshall Fire): Boulder County appointed a Fire Recovery Manager, a resident with a background in project management, to oversee rebuilding efforts. This position reported to county officials and successfully expedited the reconstruction of over 500 homes within 18 months, thanks to proactive homeowner engagement and inter-agency collaboration.

These examples demonstrate that appointing a resident or expert with relevant experience to a dedicated rebuild oversight role can significantly accelerate recovery, enhance community trust, and optimize resource use—a model Malibu can emulate with the proposed Program Director position.

Compensation and Benefits
Option 1: Consultant Hire
• Compensation: The Program Director will be hired as an independent consultant at a competitive rate commensurate with experience and aligned with senior municipal management or disaster recovery consultant roles in California. • Contract Terms: A formal consultancy agreement will outline deliverables, timelines, and payment schedules, with the option for extension beyond six months contingent on performance and ongoing rebuild needs.

Option 2: Gratis Ventis (Voluntary Service)
• Compensation: The Program Director will serve gratis ventis (without monetary compensation), elected by the Malibu City Council as a community-driven appointee dedicated to the public good. This option is designed for candidates motivated by civic duty and a desire to directly contribute to Malibu’s recovery. • Privileges and Authority: In lieu of salary, the Program Director will receive:
o Full access to City staff and facilities to support rebuild efforts, including office space, administrative support, and technological resources (e.g., software for dashboards, communication tools).
o Authority to call and agendize items for City Council votes, ensuring the ability to escalate unresolved issues (e.g., policy disputes, resource needs) for timely resolution.
o Direct collaboration with the City Manager and Planning & Building leadership to allocate staff and resources to the rebuild team.

PATH

FORWARD
10

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.E.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director / Building Official
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 25, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Provide Direction on Potential Self-Certification Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Take action to either decline or direct staff to further explore a self-certification program.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: At the April 24, 2025, Special City Council workshop, staff provided a presentation on the topic of self-certification and a discussion took place on its potential applicability in Malibu. Currently the City adheres to the California Building Standards Codes (CBC), encompassing 12 volumes that regulate construction practices. The CBC does not address self-certification. Staff is seeking direction from Council on the establishment of a self-certification policy and program. Take action to either decline or direct staff to further explore a self-certification program.

ALTERNATIVES: None.

ATTACHMENTS: None
City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.E.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.D.

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: Formation of the Sewer Ad Hoc Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Create an Ad Hoc Committee to provide input and feedback to staff on plans for a potential sewer system; and 2) Appoint two Councilmembers to serve on the Sewer Ad Hoc Committee.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List. This item has been prioritized as part of the Palisades Fire DISCUSSION: On April 24, 2025, the City Council heard a report from staff and discussed the options for a potential sewer system that would serve beachfront properties in the eastern end of the City, many of which were damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire.

The City Council directed staff to continue studying the feasibility of a connection to Hyperion Water Reclamation Facility and potential funding sources. The City Council also directed staff to bring back an item to establish a Sewer Ad Hoc Committee.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.D.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.F.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Alexis Brown, Acting Assistant City Manager Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 25, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Approval of Small Business Micro Stabilization Grant Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Approve the establishment of the City of Malibu Small Business Micro Grant Stabilization Program; 2) Authorize an initial grant funding pool of $300,000; 3) Authorize bypassing the Administration and Finance Subcommittee review and appropriate $300,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve to Account Number 100-7001-5930-004 (Community Grants – Small Business Micro Stabilization); and 4) Authorize Administration & Finance Subcommittee to review and award successful applicants.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for these services was not included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2024-25. An initial $300,000 will be appropriated from the City’s General Fund to fund the program. Additional allocations, if needed, would require Council approval at a later date.

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

DISCUSSION: At the April 14, 2025, regular City Council meeting, Council directed staff to establish a Small Business Micro Stabilization Grant Program to assist businesses impacted by the Palisades Fire, severe winter storms, and prolonged Pacific Coast Highway closures.

As part of that direction, the Council determined that applications should be forwarded to the Administration & Finance Subcommittee for review and award decisions. This report presents the final program design for Council approval and formalizes the review and award structure.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

6.F.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.F.

The Small Business Micro Stabilization Grant Program is intended to provide immediate, flexible financial assistance to local businesses facing significant economic challenges.

Program Overview
• Grants between $5,000 and $20,000 will be available.
• The initial funding pool will be $300,000, allocated from the City’s General Fund. • Applications will be accepted over a three-month open solicitation period, with review and award decisions occurring every two weeks by the Administration & Finance Subcommittee.

Eligibility Criteria
Applicants must:
• Hold a valid City of Malibu business license issued on or before December 1, 2024;
• Operate an independently owned business physically located within Malibu city limits;
• Demonstrate financial hardship directly attributable to the Palisades Fire, storms, or road access disruptions;
• Be in good standing with the City.

Acceptable Documentation of Hardship
To accommodate newer businesses, applicants may submit alternative documentation such as:
• Profit and loss statements,
• Business bank statements,
• Sales tax receipts,
• Payroll records,
• POS system reports,
• Signed explanation of operational disruptions,
• Insurance claims or utility bills demonstrating business interruption.

Eligible Use of Funds
Eligible uses include rent assistance, payroll, inventory replacement, equipment repairs, utilities, marketing, and recovery-related costs.

Review Process
• Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis every two weeks by the Administration & Finance Subcommittee during the open application period. • The Subcommittee will review, score, and determine grant awards based on eligibility, demonstrated need, and application completeness.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.F.

ALTERNATIVES:
• Modifying the maximum or minimum grant award amounts; • Adjusting the total funding pool allocation;
• Modifying the role of the Administration & Finance Subcommittee; • Directing staff to return with additional options for administration or timing adjustments.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Small Business Micro Grant Stabilization Program Application Packet City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org 1 Small Business Micro Stabilization Grant Program
Application Packet
Program Overview
The City of Malibu has established the Small Business Micro Stabilization Grant Program to provide direct financial assistance to local small businesses affected by the Palisades Fire, severe storms, and prolonged Pacific Coast Highway closures.

Grants ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 are available to help businesses with economic recovery and to retain jobs within the community.

The program is funded by City of Malibu resources and administered under the City's General Fund Grant Program framework.

Eligibility Requirements
To qualify, applicants must:
• Operate a brick-and-mortar or home-based business physically located within the Malibu city limits;
• Have a valid County of Los Angeles business license issued on or before December 1, 2024;
• Be independently owned and operated (not a corporate chain or publicly traded entity); • Have experienced demonstrable hardship related to the Palisades Fire, storm damage, or road closures (e.g., revenue decline, staffing reductions, business interruptions); • Have no outstanding code violations with the City;
• Be in good standing with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Eligible Use of Funds
Grant funds may be used for:
• Lease or rent assistance
• Payroll and employee retention
• Inventory replacement
• Equipment or repairs
2 Recycled Paper
• Utilities and insurance expenses
• Marketing and promotion efforts to re-establish operations • Costs associated with temporary relocation if needed
Note: Grant funds cannot be used to repay personal loans, personal expenses, or to fund new business startups.

Grant Amounts
Applicants may request funding between:
• Minimum: $5,000
• Maximum: $20,000
Grant amounts will be determined based on demonstrated need, impact, and available funding.

Required Documents
Applicants must submit the following:
• Completed application form (included below);
• Proof of valid County of Los Angeles business license; • Proof of financial hardship, such as a profit and loss statement, business bank statements, sales tax receipts, POS system reports, payroll records, or other documentation demonstrating disaster-related business disruption. • Narrative statement describing financial impact and recovery plans (maximum 500 words);
• Copy of current lease agreement, or property ownership documentation (if applicable);
• IRS W-9 Form (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification); • Any supporting documentation demonstrating hardship (e.g., revenue loss reports, notice of insurance claim, termination notices, staffing reduction evidence).

Timeline
Application Period Opens: May 1, 2025
Application Period Closes: August 1, 2025
Review and Award: May 15, June 1, June 15, July 15, July 29, and Final August 12 Application Review Criteria
Applications will be evaluated based on:
• Demonstrated financial hardship and need;
• Overall impact of the fire, storm events, and PCH closures; • Viability and recovery potential of the business;
3 Recycled Paper
• Completeness of the application and supporting documentation. • All grant awards are subject to available funding and City Council authorization.

Acceptable Documentation for Demonstrating Hardship
Note: If you are a newer business without a full-year profit and loss statement, you may submit alternative documentation listed in the program guidelines to demonstrate your hardship.

Applicants must submit one or more of the following:
• Profit and Loss Statement (2023 and/or YTD 2025)
OR, if not available:
• Business Bank Statements showing revenue loss (e.g., compare recent months to pre-disaster months)
• Sales Tax Receipts showing a decline in taxable sales • Point-of-Sale (POS) System Reports showing drop in transaction volume • Payroll Records showing reduction in workforce or staffing hours • Letter of Explanation (signed by business owner) describing impacts and changes in business activity, such as closures, loss of contracts, event cancellations, or supply chain disruptions
• Insurance Claims or Notices related to fire, storm, or business interruption • Lease Amendments or Rent Deferral Agreements showing hardship negotiations with landlords
• Utility Bills showing significant change in business operations (e.g., closed for a period, reduced usage)
4 Recycled Paper

APPLICATION FORM

1. Business Information
Business Name: _____________________________________________________________ Business Address: ___________________________________________________________ Mailing Address (if different): ___________________________________________________ Business License Number: _____________________________________________________ Type of Business (brief description): ______________________________________________ Years in Operation: _______________________________________ Is this a home-based business? [ ] Yes [ ] No

2. Contact Information
Business Owner Name: ____________________________________ Phone Number: ___________________________________________ Email Address: ____________________________________________

3. Impact Assessment
Describe how the Palisades Fire, storm events, or PCH closures impacted your business operations. (Maximum 500 words)
Estimated revenue loss (%) compared to prior year: _______% Current number of employees (as of today): _______
5 Recycled Paper
Number of employees prior to December 2024: _______

4. Funding Request
Amount Requested: $ ___________ (between $5,000 and $20,000) Briefly describe how you plan to use the grant funds:

5. Certification
I certify that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the City of Malibu may verify information provided and that false statements may result in forfeiture of grant funding.

Signature: _______________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________
Submission Instructions
Submit your completed application and required documents:

By Email: [Insert Email Address]
By Mail or In Person: 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265 Applications must be received by August 1, 2025, to be considered.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Susan Dueñas, Public Safety Director
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 4, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Proposed Mike Treinen Public Safety Award
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Review a recommendation by the Public Safety Commission to establish an annual Mike Treinen Public Safety Award and, 2) Provide direction to staff if appropriate.

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

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

DISCUSSION: Deputy Michael Treinen served in the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) for over 30 years, spending the majority of that time assigned to the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station. Sadly, on April 6, 2021, the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station announced the untimely death of Deputy Treinen.

Treinen retired in 2020 and his career was marked by many achievements. While Treinen was well known within the LASD as a training officer who helped train new deputies, in Malibu he was best known as the local homeless outreach coordinator. In this capacity, he was known for his successful efforts to provide dignity to Malibu’s homeless while enforcing the law and securing housing opportunities for them. In addition, in 2012, Treinen and another officer, Lt. Jim Royal, were commended after rescuing an 89-yearold woman from a burning building on Little Rock Way in Malibu.

The overwhelming love and respect for Deputy Treinen was demonstrated on April 18, 2021, when hundreds of family members, friends, surfers, first responders, city officials, and community members gathered at Zuma Beach for a paddle-out in his honor. The City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

7.A.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.
paddle-out was visited by a Sheriff’s Department helicopter as well as two lifeguard boats that saluted the longtime public servant.

At the April 2, 2025, Public Safety Commission Meeting, the Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that an annual Mike Treinen Public Safety Award be established. Establishing an annual award in Treinen’s name to honor community members who are also dedicated to compassionate public safety, will memorialize Treinen’s legacy and provide an opportunity to recognize those who go above and beyond in protecting the Malibu community. Staff proposes that the City Council award the recognition based on nominations submitted to, and decided by, the Public Safety Commission.

A similar award was created in 2002 when the Parks and Recreation Commission created the Jake Kuredjian Citizenship Award in honor of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Hagop "Jake" Kuredjian. Deputy Kuredjian was killed in the line of duty on August 31, 2001, while he and other law enforcement personnel were engaged in a shootout with a suspect in Stevenson Ranch. The Jake Kuredjian Citizenship Award is presented annually to recognize an outstanding individual or group who gives their time and resources to enhance the quality of recreation programs within the Malibu community.

ATTACHMENTS: None

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kellan Martz, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 16, 2025 Meeting Date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Use of Trancas Canyon Park for Soccer and Ball Field Games and Review of Settlement Agreement Provisions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this report and provide direction to staff on whether to initiate discussions with MTC regarding a potential amendment to the Settlement Agreement that would allow for organized games or league play at Trancas Canyon Park.

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

WORK PLAN: This item supports the Community Lands priority identified in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: In response to questions raised about the potential use of the sports field at Trancas Canyon Park, the City Council directed the City Attorney’s Office to analyze and provide a report regarding any limitations on use of the field that were included in the settlement agreement with the Malibu Township Council (MTC).

Background
In 2009, the City approved the development of Trancas Canyon Park, including a multiuse sports field. Following project approval, MTC filed a lawsuit challenging the project on various legal grounds, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City and MTC resolved the lawsuit through a Settlement Agreement, which was executed in December 2009.

Among other terms, the Settlement Agreement provided limitations on the use of the park.

Specifically, the agreement included a provision limiting the use of the multi-use sports field to practice only, and explicitly prohibited league play. This restriction was to be recorded against the title to the property pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

7.B.
1

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.

Field Use Limitation in the Settlement Agreement
Section 3.B of the 2009 Settlement Agreement states:
“Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, the City agrees, represents and warrants that it shall refrain from eliminating or otherwise changing in any way the condition of approval prohibiting league play on the multi-use sports field, and that league play shall be prohibited in Trancas Canyon Park. The field may be used for practice. […] This subparagraph 3.B. expresses the parties’ intent that the City create an enforceable restriction against the title to the property which runs with the land, preventing the use of Trancas Canyon Park for league play.” This restriction remains in effect and currently limits the use of the fields. The project approval also contains a condition prohibiting league play stating: “Use of the sports field will be limited to practice-use only, prohibiting league games.” Option for Allowing League Play
If the City Council wishes to allow organized games or league play on the multi-use field, it is recommended that it direct staff to work with MTC to reach agreement on amending the Settlement Agreement to remove the prohibition on League Play and/or create an ad hoc committee of the City Council to advise staff and/or directly speak with MTC.

If an agreement is reached, the restriction could be removed and an amendment to the project approvals could be brought forward to allow league play. The amendment could contain conditions limiting the amount of league play and the timing and manner in which it could occur and could also require other mitigation of any impacts anticipated from league play. There would need to be a public hearing before the planning commission to amend the project entitlements before league play could commence.

ATTACHMENTS:
2009 Settlement Agreement between City of Malibu and Malibu Township Council. 2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE

TRANCAS CANYON PARK PROJECT AND LAWSUIT
j) ce.h\bTl;!_is SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of �eye�er _l__, 2009, by and between the Malibu Township Council (MTC), a California nonprofit corporation, and the City of Malibu (City), a municipal corporation organized and existing as a general law city, for the purpose of resolving and settling the dispute between MTC and the City concerning the Trancas Canyon Park project. MTC and the City are hereafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and individually, each a "Party."

RECITALS
A. On February 23 and March 9, 2009, the city council certified a final environmental impact report (FEIR) and approved entitlements for use (coastal development permit no. 07-086, variances no. 08-021 and no. 08-056, conditional use permit no. 07-011, site plan review no. 08-061 and lot merger no. 08-002) for the project known as the Trancas Canyon Park project (Project or Park), which the City proposes to develop and operate on 13.53 acres it owns in lower Trancas Canyon. The Park primarily proposes a multi-use sports field, ·a tot-lot/playground area, a dog park and picnic amenities.

B. On April 23, 2009, MTC filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court (LASC), case number BS 120290 (Lawsuit), challenging the certification of the FEIR and Project entitlements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Coastal Act of 1976, the Malibu Local Coastal Program, the Malibu General Plan and the Malibu zoning ordinance.

C. On May 26, 2009, the City Council approved modifications to the design of the project, including: ( 1) leaving intact the ridge in the northern area of the Project site, the eastern knoll and the eastern slope located below the multi-use sports field, along with rocky outcroppings, a small cave and cliffside habitat facing federal parkland part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area; (2) reduction of grading from 126,528 cubic yards (64,615 cubic yards of cut and 61,913 cubic yards of fill) to 77,502 cubic yards (38,660 cubic yards of cut and 38,842 cubic yards of fill); (3) 3 Attachment 1
reduction of the dog park area from 45,520 square feet to 28,337 square feet; (4) reduction of the tot-lot/playground area from 10,000 square feet to 7,300 square feet; (5) reduction of the parking lot from 64 to 45 spaces; and (6) elimination of a basketball half-court. At that time, the city council further directed staff to prepare final Project plans which incorporate the then-approved modifications and are otherwise consistent with the conditions of approval of coastal • development permit 07-086 and the related entitlements for the Park approved on February 23 and March 9, 2009.

D. Following the City Council's action of May 26, 2009, the Parties conducted extensive settlement discussions, within the framework of CEQA's settlement procedure, all in a desire to resolve the dispute concerning the Project and dismiss the Lawsuit.

E. By entering into this Agreement, the Parties represent and acknowledge that: (1) the City intends to build the Park as approved on May 26, 2009, though it retains the right to make future changes to such approval, subject to prior, appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA and a public hearing; and (2) MTC does not express pre-consent to any such possible changes, especially if they expand the amount of any grading or grading footprint, add other development, or increase intensity or hours of use.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this settlement, and the mutual promises, releases, representations and warranties contained herein, MTC and the City agree as set forth below. 1 . Dismissal of the Lawsuit.

Within three (3) court days of MTC's counsel's receipt from the City Attorney of a copy of this Agreement, duly executed on behalf of the City, MTC shall file and serve (1) the notice of settlement required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385 (a); and (2) a request for dismissal of the entire Lawsuit with prejudice, in the form of attached Exhibit 1.
2 4

2. MTC Waiver of Private Attorney General Fees.

In consideration of entering into this Agreement and for the City's promises, representations and warranties set forth herein, including the representation and warranty in Recital E above, MTC waives any claim for private attorney general fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, arising out of MTC's petition for peremptory writ of administrative mandamus and complaint for injunctive relief filed in the Lawsuit. MTC and the City agree that each Party shall bear any attorney fees and litigation costs such Party has borne or incurred in connection with the Lawsuit.

3. City Representation and Warranty.

A. Consistent with Recital E above, the City agrees, represents and warrants that, unless and until it conducts environmental review required by CEQA and holds a public hearing, it will refrain from ( 1) changing the Project as approved on May 26, 2009, in a manner that would result in significant environmental impacts, including visual impacts on public and private property ( due to land form alteration or other project design features), flood, hydrology, biotic, as well as fire and safety impacts; and (2) modifying Resolutions Nos. 09-11 and 09-28 to eliminate or change in any way any condition of approval or mitigation measure.

B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, the City agrees, represents and warrants that it shall refrain from eliminating or otherwise changing in any way the condition of approval prohibiting league play on the multi-use sports field, and that league play shall be prohibited in Trancas Canyon Park. The field may be used for practice. Within five (5) days of execution of this Agreement, the City shall cause the condition of approval prohibiting league play to be recorded against title to the property. The document the City will cause to be recorded is attached to this . Agreement as Exhibit 2. Within five (5) days of recordation, the City shall provide MTC evidence thereof. This subparagraph 3.B. expresses the parties' intent that the City create an enforceable restriction against the title to the property which runs with the land, preventing the use of Trancas Canyon Park for league play. 3 5

4. Mutual Releases.

Except for the contractual obligations set forth in this Agreement, MTC and City do hereby release and forever discharge each other, and their elected and appointed officials, employees, officers, directors and attorneys from any and every claim, demand, obligation, liability or defense that was or could have been raised with respect to the approval of the Project, including any cross-complaint that could have been filed in the Lawsuit. The undersigned expressly waive all rights under section 1542 of the Civil Code which states:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH

THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN

HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH

IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR."
Nothing in this Agreement precludes any Party from exercising any legal or equitable remedy for breach of this Agreement. Furthermore, nothing in this Agreement relieves MTC from its obligation to exhaust administrative or judicial remedies should the City approve changes to the Project which MTC in good faith believes will increase an environmental impact of the Project or alter any approval condition or mitigation in effect as a result of the City's May 26, 2009 action.

5. Notices.

Any notices under this Agreement shall be given by fax and method of overnight delivery, directed as follows:

For MTC, to: Malibu Township Council
Attention: President
P.O. Box 803
Malibu, CA 90265-0803; and
Angel Law
Attention: Frank P. Angel
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Fax: (310) 314-6434
4 6
For City, to: City of Malibu
Attention: City Manager
23815 Stuart Ranch Road*
[*after 1/2012 23825 Stuart Ranch Road]
Malibu CA 90265
Fax:(310)456-3356;and

6. Miscellaneous.

Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Attention: Christi Hogin
1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Fax: (310) 643-8441
A. This Agreement constitutes the entirety of the agreement between the Parties regarding the Project.

B. This Agreement and any subsequent amendments
thereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

C. The rights and obligations described in this Agreement shall accrue to, and be binding on, the heirs, successors in interest and assigns of the Parties.

D. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable by a court, such unenforceability shall not affect any other provision herein, and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.

E. Any change to this Agreement or additional obligation assumed by any party shall be in writing duly signed by each Party.

Any claimed change to this Agreement shall be binding and enforceable only if evidenced in writing, duly signed by each Party.

F. Any claim of waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid unless it is evidenced in a writing signed by the Party against whom the claim of waiver is made. The waiver of any provision of this Agreement or failure to enforce any provision, shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision.
5 7
G. The headings in this Agreement are for the Parties'
convenience. They shall not be relied on in interpreting its language.

H. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Each counterpart will be deemed an original, but all counterparts together shall constitute one document. A fully executed copy of this Agreement, sent by fax or emailed as a PDF file (with signature pages scanned) shall be deemed an original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

CITY OF MALIBU
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ANGEL LAW
By: .:::::�
Frank P. Angel, Coun

JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
By: Ck r'oti lli� .,,,,_ Ii�
Christi Hagin, City Attorney
6 8
G. The headings in this Agreement are for the Parties'
convenience. They shall not be relied on in interpreting its language.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. eve Uhring, President

CITY OF MALIBU
By: ________________ _
Sharon Barovsky, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ANGEL LAW
By: ,. ,(ij : J;, ,1 ,,.__,,{
-F
-ra-n
�k_P ___ A
_n
_g
_e
-1
,�� C-o
-i"'-�-�-l
fo----
T
-C _______ _

JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
By: ________________ _
Christi Hagin, City Attorney
6 9
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state BBi nwnber, and address):

Frank P. Angel (SBN: 113301)
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205

FOR COURT USE ONLY
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
TELEPHONE NO.: (310) 3} 4-6433 FAX NO. (Optional) (310) 314-6434 E-MAIL ADDREss 1optiona1J: fanfi
el@Jt
angeliaw.com
ArroRNEYFORfNameJ: Ma ibu ownship Council
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles
sTREET ADDREss, 111 North Hill Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
cIrvANozIPcooE, Los Angeles 90012
BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Malibu Township Council
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: City of Malibu, City Council of the City of Malibu

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
D CASE NUMBER: Personal Injury, Property Damage, or Wrongful Death D Motor Vehicle D Other BS120290
D FamilyLaw D Eminent Domain
[Z] Other (specify) : CEQA and Coastal Act
- A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document. -

1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows:
a. (1) [LI With prejudice (2) D Without prejudice
b. (1) D Complaint (2) D Petition
(3) D Cross-complaint filed by (name):
(4)D Cross-complaint filed by (name):
(5) W Entire action of all parties and all causes of action (6) D Other (specify):*

2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.)
on (date):
on (date):

CIV-110
D Court fees and costs were waived for a party in this case. (This information may be obtained from the clerk. ff this box is checked, the declaration on the back of this form must be completed). � Date:
.�r_a!)_
12-08-09
k, P: Ai:i-g�L . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ► • � • _ --------- , &:!\ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF 0 ATTORNEY D PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE) •11 dismissal reciuested Is of specified parties only of specified causes of action Attorney or party without attorney for:
�:rse� o�1a5d::�� c�o��m��o ��ls�ss:'.e and Identify Iha parties, [LI Plaintiff/Petitioner D Defendant/Respondent D Cross-Complainant

3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.** Date:
►--------
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF D ATTORNEY D PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) •• If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative (SIGNATURE)
Attorney or party without attorney for:
relief - Is on file. the attorney for cross-complainant (respondent) must sign !his consent If reQuired by Code of Clvil Procedure section 581 (i) ,. orO).

D Plaintiff/Petitioner D Defendant/Respondent
D Cross-Complainant
(To be completed by clerk)

4. D Dismissal entered as requested on (date):
5 D Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name):

6. D Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify):

7. a. D Attorney or party without attorney notified on (date):
b. D Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide D a copy to be confomied D means to return conformed copy Date: Clerk, by , Deputy ------------------- Pa 1of2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Coone, of CBIWomia
CIV-110 (Rev. July 1. 2009)

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
f::xhibit J_ __ Page __ _
COCle cf Civil Procedure, § 581 et seq.;
Gov. Code, §68637(c); cal. Rules of Court, role 3.1390
American LegaJNe� Inc. www.ooiv/info.ca.gov
www.FormsWorl</low.com
10 Recorded at the Request of and Mail to:

CITY OF MALIBU
23815 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Attn: City Manager

ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS AFFIDAVIT
The permittee and owner of the property acknowledges the City of Malibu City Council's decision of approval and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof i.e. City of Malibu City Council Resolution 09-11 and 09-28 (Trancas Canyon Park) adopted on March 9, 2009 and attached hereto, including without limitation the prohibition against league play on the multiuse sports field in Trancas Canyon Park.

Date Signature of Permittee or
Authorized Agent
Print Permittee or Authorized
Agent Name

ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
On
Date
personally appeared
} ss
before
(insert Name of Notary Public and Title)
me
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Notary Public's signature in and for said County and State) (seal) 7 Exhibitl:--__ Page __ _
11

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kellan Martz, Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed by: Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Yolanda Bundy, Environmental Sustainability Director
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 11, 2025 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Options for Addressing Debris Hazards on Properties Significantly Damaged or Destroyed by the Palisades Fire (Continued from April 28, 2025 Regular Meeting)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report and provide direction to staff regarding the City's preferred approach to addressing unresponsive owners of properties that contain structures that were substantially damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire.

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

Staff may return to the City Council for authorization of costs in the event the Council authorizes certain actions which may have significant costs.

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

DISCUSSION: On January 7, 2025, a wildfire broke out in Pacific Palisades and rapidly spread westward, fueled by historic Santa Ana wind conditions and widespread power outages. The fire caused extensive destruction across multiple jurisdictions, including the City of Malibu.

With immediate threats contained, the City is now shifting focus toward recovery, remediation, and rebuilding. A particularly urgent issue involves the numerous properties that contain structures that were substantially damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire—primarily along the coast—where property owners have not responded to cleanup City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

7.C.

Page 2 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.
requests, for a number of reasons. These unresponsive properties now pose significant public safety, environmental, and legal challenges.

The most critical threat comes from beachfront parcels that relied on Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS), commonly referred to as septic. Many of these systems were damaged or destroyed in the fire and some may now actively be leaking raw sewage onto the sand and into the ocean. Hazardous materials and fire debris also continue to be pulled into the Pacific Ocean by wave action, impacting water quality and threatening marine ecosystems across the Los Angeles County coastline. The destruction of shoreline protection and sea walls has further exposed Pacific Coast Highway to erosion, threatening this vital transportation corridor.

While beachfront parcels present the most severe and visible risks, numerous inland parcels also remain unremediated and present potential environmental, safety, structural, or health hazards. In many cases, the City or other governmental agencies have attempted to contact owners of these sites but have received no response or remediation plan.

Impacted residents have until April 15, 2025, to submit a Right of Entry form to opt-in or opt-out of the government-run debris removal program.

This report identifies legal mechanisms available to the City to address these properties, including nuisance abatement proceedings, summary abatement in severe situations, and condemnation processes under applicable building codes.

This report outlines potential legal tools available to the City and opportunities to partner with outside agencies:

1. Standard Nuisance Abatement Proceedings

2. Summary Nuisance Abatement Proceedings

3. Notice of Unsafe Building Procedures

4. Potential Cooperation with Los Angeles County

5. Potential Cooperation with State and Federal authorities For the first three tools above, the City would pursue cleanup of these properties if approved to do so by a court or by way of other legal procedures. In the event the City takes on these cleanup tasks, the report details the rough, estimated costs. Those costs may be borne by the City, in certain situations. The below procedures may also require court action in some circumstances.

Standard Nuisance Abatement
Under Chapter 8.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City may declare a property a public nuisance and require the owner to take corrective action to remedy hazardous or blighted

Page 3 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.
conditions. This formal process is most suitable where the nuisance does not pose an immediate danger but affects the public at large.

The procedure includes:
• Notice to the Property Owner describing the conditions that constitute a nuisance and demanding corrective action;
• Opportunity to Voluntarily Cure the violation within a specified timeframe; • Public Hearing before the City Council if the property owner fails to comply; • Findings and Abatement Order if a nuisance is confirmed, requiring specific remediation actions;
• City-Led Abatement if the owner fails to act, with the City recovering costs via lien or special assessment.

This process complies with constitutional due process requirements and is a wellestablished legal remedy under California law (Gov. Code Section 38771; Civil Code Sections 3479–3496). A city may also seek judicial remedies, including injunctive relief, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 731 and relevant case law (City of Santa Clara v.

Paris; City of Bakersfield v. Miller).

Cost Recovery Options: If the City performs the abatement and the owner fails to pay within 10 days, the City Clerk may record a lien on the property with the County Recorder.

The property owner would have the opportunity to file a protest against the cost, which would be heard by the City Council. This lien will continue until the entire amount is paid in full with interest at the legal maximum rate (Municipal Code Section 8.28.070).

Additionally, the cost of abatement may be added to the owner's property tax bill pursuant to Section 8.28.080. If the City initiates any enforcement action or administrative proceeding, attorney's fees are also recoverable, if the City elects to seek them at the start of the case (Section 8.28.110).

While legally defensible, this process can take weeks or months to complete. It is the preferred course when urgency is low but documentation and property rights protections are critical.

Summary Nuisance Abatement
Where a property condition poses an immediate threat to public health or safety, the City may act under its summary abatement powers without providing the full hearing procedures required under standard nuisance abatement.

Authorized under Government Code Section 38773, Civil Code Section 3491, and Chapter

8.28 of the City's Municipal Code, this process allows immediate entry and remediation actions when there is a documented, urgent threat—such as:
• Structurally unstable debris;

Page 4 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.
• Flooding or hazardous materials;
• Exposed septic systems or materials near beaches;
• Fire hazards or open utility connections;
• Threats to adjacent occupied properties.

The City must document the nature of the threat and ensure that abatement actions are narrowly tailored to address only the immediate danger. Post-action notice to the owner is required, and cities must maintain robust records and photographic documentation to defend against potential claims.

Cost Recovery Options: Costs of emergency abatements may be recovered through the same lien and tax bill procedures noted above in Section 8.28.070 and Section 8.28.080.

Attorney fees are also recoverable in administrative or court proceedings if properly elected per Section 8.28.110.

While a much quicker option, this option comes with higher litigation risk, including claims of unlawful entry, takings, or violation of due process. Courts generally uphold abatement actions taken with proper justification (City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer, 11 Cal.App.4th 378), but scrutiny is higher in the absence of a hearing. The city may also have to pay increased costs to defend this type of litigation, and there is a greater risk that the costs may not be recovered.

Notice of Unsafe Building Procedures
The City is authorized to declare buildings unsafe for occupancy under Title 15 of the Malibu Municipal Code, which adopts by reference the California Building Code and Title 33 of the Los Angeles County Code. These codes provide the authority to deem unsafe or damaged structures as uninhabitable and, where appropriate, pursue condemnation of the building.

Under Los Angeles County Building Code Section 102, the Building Official may determine a property is unsafe or dangerous to human life constituting a hazard to safety or health or the public welfare. Unsafe buildings are those structurally unsound or hazardous due to fire damage, lack of maintenance, disaster damage, or unsafe utility connections The procedure includes:
• Posting of Signs. The Building Official shall post placards reading “RESTRICTED USE” or "UNSAFE—Do Not Enter or Occupy" and may record notices of violation with the Los Angeles County Recorder;
• Notice of Unsafe Building to the Property Owner. If a building is determined unsafe, a notice must be provided to the owner describing the dangerous or unsafe conditions along with the required corrective actions (e.g., repair, demolition, or restricted access);
• Opportunity to Voluntarily Cure. The owner must be provided with the opportunity to cure the violation within a specified period of time.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.
• Public Hearing. If the property owner fails to comply, a hearing may be required before the Building Board of Appeals before demolition or major repair occurs. If it is determined at the hearing that demolition or repair is necessary and the owner fails to comply, the City may proceed with the work.
• Emergency Procedure. If there is an immediate hazard to life and/or property the Building Official may make a determination, and take necessary action, such as performing the repairs or demolition, without an advance hearing. Notice to the owner must follow as soon as practicable.

Cost Recovery Options: The costs of securing or demolishing unsafe buildings under Section 102.5.1 and 102.5.2 of the Los Angeles County Code shall be recorded as a special assessment against the property and collected as part of regular County property taxes. Affected owners may request a hearing to challenge the reasonableness of the charges.

Violations of this code are also considered misdemeanors under MMC Section 15.06.040.

County Partnership Opportunity
On April 1, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion authorizing County agencies to offer assistance to the City of Malibu in facilitating debris removal from coastal properties with non-responsive owners. Under this proposal, the County would act as the City’s agent in conducting abatement actions—but only after the City initiates and approves nuisance abatement procedures for each property, whether through standard or summary abatement.

While this partnership could significantly increase capacity for field operations and outreach—particularly given the County’s staffing resources—the costs of abatement would remain the responsibility of the City of Malibu. The County also committed to conducting targeted outreach efforts to identify displaced property owners and maximize participation in the PPDR program ahead of the April 15, 2025, deadline. No agreement has been executed as of the date of this report, but Council direction is requested on whether to pursue such a partnership.

It is important to note that no Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other agreement has been reached with the City and Los Angeles County regarding debris removal operations. Any such agreement will need careful legal and administrative review. Among other concerns, there are indemnification questions, liability exposure, or cost-sharing terms that must be clearly negotiated and approved.

State and Federal Assistance
Pursuant to the Council’s direction and letter to the Governor, the City has requested assistance from State and Federal authorities in expediting the removal of debris and the elimination of the potential hazards described above. The Governor’s Office has been receptive to the City’s requests and it is recommended that the City coordinate with his

Page 6 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 7.C.
office before commencing any of the above actions. The State has the resources and ability to quickly authorize, and conduct, the removal of these hazards.

ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES:

It is not possible to provide an exact dollar figure for the costs to abate the myriad and site specific issues without more detailed onsite study. Each property is unique and costs fluctuate wildly, especially in the current economic climate. However, it is expected that the estimated cost may range from $150,000-$250,000 per parcel.

POTENTIAL RISKS:

While the City has several avenues to pursue in order to recover costs as described above, there are limitations for the City to consider. Some of the risks associated with the above actions include:
• Financial Risk: There is no guarantee the City will be reimbursed for cleanup or abatement work. While FEMA, Cal OES, and other agencies may offer reimbursement, such reimbursement can be delayed or denied. • Insurance Gaps: While some properties may carry private insurance, the coverage may be inadequate or already exhausted. Insurance proceeds may also be tied up in paying other claims (e.g., mortgage lenders or prior fire damage). In addition, it is common for litigation over insurance to proceed for years. • Legal Risk: If the City acts on any of the remedies outline above, a litigation risk exists and courts could find the City’s actions to be unlawful and/or the costs expended unreasonable. Even where lawsuits are unlikely to prevail, defense costs can be significant, and judgments and costs can prove uncollectable.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 8.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 16, 2024 Meeting date: April 28, 2025 Subject: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate(s) for the 2025 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Annual Regional Conference and General Assembly
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the City’s voting delegate and alternate voting delegate for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2025 Annual Regional Conference and General Assembly scheduled for May 1-2, 2025 in Palm Desert.

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

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

DISCUSSION: On May 1-2, 2025, local leaders from throughout Southern California will convene for SCAG’s 59th annual Regional Conference and General Assembly (Conference) in Palm Desert. The Conference brings together state and local elected officials, business and civic leaders, transportation and environmental stakeholders, local government staff, and others.

In order to vote at the Conference on behalf of the City, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and alternate voting delegate (should the primary delegate be unable to attend). Staff will notify SCAG of the Council’s appointments.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

City Council Meeting
04-28-25
Item

8.A.

Malibu City CouncilApril 28, 2025

Malibu City Council
April 28, 2025