Malibu City Council
May 8, 2025

PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE AGENDA DOCUMENT FOR
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

Meeting Agenda
CC250508_AGENDA_.PDF
Item 1B1
Modification to the Scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee CC250508_ITEM 1B1.PDF
CC250508_ITEM 1B1_SUPPLEMENTAL.PDF
Item 2A
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)
CC250508_ITEM 2A.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

3. Documents:

HOW TO VIEW THE MEETING: The meeting will be live streamed at www.malibucity.org/video and via Zoom Webinar.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE MEETING: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence to [email protected] before the meeting begins.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON DURING THE MEETING: Members of the public may speak during the meeting in-person or through the Zoom application. In order to participate in-person, each speaker must complete and submit to the Recording Secretary a Request to Speak form. In-person participants may also surrender their opportunity to speak on a particular item to defer one minute to another in-person speaker.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY DURING THE MEETING: Members of the public may speak during the meeting in-person or through the Zoom application. In order to participate remotely, you must be present in the Zoom Webinar during the item that you would like to speak on and use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak when the Mayor calls the item. When you join the Zoom Webinar you may see a pop-up asking you to enter an email address, but a valid email address is not required. Be advised that those participating via Zoom do so at their own risk; remote participants should not expect the meeting to be cancelled or continued due the inability of some members of the public to access the remote meeting.

Malibu City Council
Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda
Thursday, May 8, 2025
2:00 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
City Hall – Council Chambers
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zoom Webinar Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88038212429
Two p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order - Mayor
Roll Call - Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
Report on Posting of Agenda – May 2, 2025
Approval of Agenda
City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda Page - 2 - May 8, 2025

1. Consent Calendar
Items in Consent Calendar Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which a decision was made. Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. Items in Consent Calendar Section B have not been discussed previously by the Council. Members of the public may comment on the consent calendar as a whole. After public comment, the Council may remove items from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration before adopting the Consent Calendar.

A. Previously Discussed Items
None.

B. New Items

1. Modification to the Scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee Recommended Action: Receive and file report confirming the scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee includes investigating and providing recommendations to the City Council on issues related to rebuilding after the fire, including issues related to water tanks and fire flow.

Staff Contact: Interim Deputy City Manager Rojas, 456-2489, ext. 300

2. Ordinances and Public Hearings
For Public Hearings involving zoning matters the appellant and applicant will be given 15 minutes each to present their position to the City Council, including rebuttal time.

A. 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).

Staff Contact: Interim Planning Director Tamuri, 456-2489, ext. 346 Adjournment
Future Meetings
Monday, May 12, 2025 5:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, May 22, 2025 3:00 p.m. Special City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers Monday, May 27, 2025 5:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda Page - 3 - May 8, 2025 Guide to the City Council Proceedings and Decorum
Public Communications: Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. Members of the public may speak during the meeting in-person or through the Zoom application. In order to participate remotely, you must be present in the Zoom Webinar during the item that you would like to speak on and use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak when the Mayor calls the item. In order to participate in-person, each speaker must complete and submit to the Recording Secretary a Request to Speak form prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor. In-person participants may surrender their time by deferring one (1) minute to another in-person speaker, not to exceed a total of eight (8) minutes.

The speaker wishing to defer time must be present when the item is heard and their form must be submitted with the speaker form for the individual they are deferring time to. Speakers are taken in the order slips are submitted or hands are raised.

On specific agenda items Councilmembers may question any person addressing the City Council at the conclusion of all public testimony on that agenda item before the Council. Councilmembers shall not engage any member of the public in a dialogue with themselves other Councilmembers, city staff or other members of the public.

Role of the Presiding Officer: The presiding officer of the City Council, who shall be the Mayor, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to ensure that these rules of procedure and decorum are followed at all times. The presiding officer shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers, between the Council and the public, and chair each meeting in a fair and impartial manner. It shall be the duty of each Councilmember to support the presiding officer in maintaining the order and decorum of Council meetings.

Members of the Audience: Members of the audience shall not engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including clapping, whistling, stamping of feet, or other acts which disturb, disrupt, impede or otherwise disturb the orderly conduct of the City Council meeting. Persons addressing the City Council shall not engage in disorderly conduct which disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct or Council meetings. Any person who so disrupts a Council meeting may, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the City Council, be subject to ejection from that meeting.

No new items will be taken-up after 10:30 p.m. without a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

City Council meetings are aired live and replayed on City of Malibu Government Access Channel 3 and are available on demand on the City’s website at www.malibucity.org/video. Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business described above are on file in the office of the City Clerk, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California, and are available for public inspection during regular office hours, which are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California (Government Code Section 54957.5.b.2). Copies of staff reports and written materials may be purchased for $0.10 per page.

TheCity Hall phone number is (310) 456-2489. To contact City Hall using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), please call (800) 735-2929 and a California Relay Service operator will assist you. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Environmental Sustainability Director Yolanda Bundy, (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADD Title II].

Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a Council meeting should be directed to the Media Team at [email protected]. Material must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting day.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Regular and Adjourned Regular meeting agendas may be amended up to 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Dated this 2nd day of May 2025 at 4:30 p.m.

Christina Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk

Agenda Item # 1.B.1.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Richard Rojas, Interim Deputy City Manager Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: April 30, 2025 Meeting date: May 8, 2025 Subject: Modification to the Scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report confirming the scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee includes investigating and providing recommendations to the City Council on issues related to rebuilding after the fire, including issues related to water tanks and fire flow.

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: Recovery and rebuilding efforts following the Palisades Fire continue to significantly impact Malibu residents, businesses, and stakeholders. On January 27, 2025, the City Council approved the formation of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to participate in City-hosted events such as town halls, public forums, and stakeholder meetings. The committee’s role is to provide timely updates, gather community input, and help shape ongoing recovery strategies.

As the implementation of many preliminary strategies is now underway, there is an increasing need to address additional critical components of the recovery process. These include the evaluation of fire water tanks, the adequacy of water available for firefighting (commonly referred to as "fire flow"), and broader fire rebuild concerns.

To ensure continuity of knowledge and to support efficient, informed decision-making, staff recommends expanding the responsibilities of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee to include oversight of fire water tanks, fire flow capacity, and related fire rebuild issues.

City Council Meeting
05-08-25
Item

1.B.1.

Agenda Item # 1.B.1.

ALTERNATIVES: Establish a new Ad-Hoc Committee that will focus on fire water tanks, fire flow, and other fire rebuild issues.

ATTACHMENTS: None

Agenda Item # 1.B.1.

Supplemental
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Richard Rojas, Interim Deputy City Manager Approved by: Joseph D. Toney, Acting City Manager
Date prepared: May 6, 2025 Meeting date: May 8, 2025
Subject: Modification to the Scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report confirming the scope of the Palisades Fire Ad Hoc Committee includes investigating and providing recommendations to the City Council on issues related to rebuilding after the fire, including issues related to water tanks and fire flow.

DISCUSSION: The attached letter from Los Angeles County Fire Chief Marrone was received in response to the City’s request for a presentation at the April 28, 2025 regular meeting.

ATTACHMENTS: Los Angeles County Fire Department Response Letter City Council Meeting
05-08-25
Item

1.B.1.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins 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: May 8, 2025 Subject: Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-021 regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 and Site Plan Review No. 23- 024 – An application to construct a new single-family residence, second unit and associated development (30053 Harvester Road, Owner, Steven Kent; Appellants, Dawn N. Ericson, Paul E Philipson, and Andrea Slosberg-Philipson)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 25-17 (Exhibit A) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), denying Appeal No. 24-004 (Exhibit B) and Appeal No. 24-005 (Exhibit C), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, twostory, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot detached yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road (Kent).

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

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

City Council Meeting
05-08-25
Item

2.A.
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA 16

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

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

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

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 25-17
B. Appeal No. 24-004
C. Appeal No. 24-005
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21
E. Project Plans
F. March 18, 2024 Staff Report and Attachments
G. April 15, 2024 Staff Report and Attachments
H. City Biologist Memo Dated March 26, 2024
I. City Biologist Memo Dated August 6, 2024
J. PVD No.24-009
K. Applicant’s Neighborhood Character Study
L. Correspondence
M. Public Hearing Notice
17 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 18 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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.
19 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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 20 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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.
21 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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.
22 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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;
23 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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.
24 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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 25 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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 26 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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.
27 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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.
28 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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
29 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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:
30 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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
31 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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.
32 Resolution No. 25-17

________________
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.
33 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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. 34 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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. 35 Resolution No. 25-17

________________

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. 36 Resolution No. 25-17

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2025. _____________________________
MARIANNE RIGGINS, 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. 37 Exhibit B
38 39
40 CDP 23-019
4/16/24 - 4/25/24
4/25/24 Larbi Azzaz
4/25/24 Rebecca Evans, Senior Administrative Analyst
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 Exhibit C
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24—21

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBUI DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

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

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

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

SECTION l. Recitals.

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

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

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

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

E. On February 22, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500—foot radius of the subject property.

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

G. On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subj ect application, reviewed and considered the staffreport, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. 72 Exhibit D
Resolution N0. 24-21

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed proj ect. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes ofproiects that have been detennined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none ofthe six exceptions to the use ofa categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

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

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter l3)

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

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

3. The subj ect property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map and verified through site-specific biological studies and 73 Resolution N0. 24-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Story poles were placed on the site in February 2024 to demonstrate the location, height and bulk ofthe proposed development and to aid the visual analysis of potential private and public view impacts. The portions of the proposed development above 18 feet in height will not significantly impede any protected private visually impressive views ofthe Pacific Ocean or other scenic areas indicated in the LCP or MMC. 74 Resolution N0. 24—21

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

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

SECTION 5. Conditions ofApproval.

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

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

Resolution N0. 24—21

h. OWTS;
Except as specifically changed by conditions ofapproval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope ofwork, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date—stamped April 2, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval. the condition shall take precedence.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13. l 8.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance ofany development permits.

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

The CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request.

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

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

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

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20. development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals. including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.
ll. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition. 76 ReSGIutiOn No. 24—21

Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereaften the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 1 l and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Geology

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

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

Environmental Health

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

17. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval. a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details. the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features ofthe OWTS and must fit onto an 1 1—inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. Ifthe scale ofthe plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks. larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

18. Final OWTS Design Report. Plans. and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planning— 77 Resolution N0. 24-21

stag€ review, then a flnal OWTS design report and large set ofconstruction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers. flow equalization devices, backtlow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer‘s wet signature. professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). l9. Any above—ground equipment associated with the installation ofthe OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42—inches tall.

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

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

Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e.. average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units ofgallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to 78 Resolution N0. 24—21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on ESHA, if applicable.

27. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. 79 Res01ution N0. 24—21

Street Improvements

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

Grading / Drainage / Hydrology

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

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

31. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofgrading permits for the prOJect: a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways. walkways, parking. tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits ofland to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area Shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits ofgrading, areas disturbed for the installation ofthe septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated; e. Ifthe property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing ofthese areas shall be delineated on this plan as required by the City Biologist;
f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for flll slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12— inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

32. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) ofthe project’s private storm drain system. public storm drain system within 250 feet ofthe property limits. and post—construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines. inlets, outlet. post—construction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements. 80 Resolution N0. 24—21

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

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

Prohibits the discharge oftrash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading). d. Elimination of non—storm water discharges.

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

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
81 Resoluti0n N0. 24-21

36. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section 17.3.2.B.2.

37. A Stomi Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pie—development and post—development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPS that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe grading or building permit for this project.

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

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. lfgrading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 3 l. unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

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

40. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

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

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

43. The discharge of swimming pool. spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash. including water containing bacteria. detergents. wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool. spa. and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated. debrominated or if the water is disinfected usmg ozonation;
There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
82 Resolution N0. 24—21

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

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

Fire Department

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

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

Construction / Framing

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

49. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City—designated holidays.
83 Resoluti0n No. 24-21

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

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

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

Colors and Materials

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

Lighting

54. Exterior lighting shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60~ watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; 84 Resolution N0. 24-21

d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens; e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

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

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

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

58. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology/Landscaping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65. Invasive plan species. as determined by the City of Malibu. are prohibited. 85 Resolution N0. 24-21

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

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

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

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

70. Necessary boundary fencing ofany single area exceeding 1/2 acre shall be of‘an open rail—type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead ofwire). be less than 40 inches high. and have a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Swimming P001 / Spa / Water Feature

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

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

3.5.3(A).

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

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

75. The discharge ofchlorinated and non-chlorinated pool / spa water into streets. storm drains. creeks. canyons. drainage channels. or other locations where it could enter receiving waters 86 ReSOIution N0. 24-21

is prohibited.

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

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

Fencing and Walls

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

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

80. Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within ESHA, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration. Fencing or walls that do not permit the free passage of wildlife shall be prohibited in any wildlife corridor. The applicant/owner must submit a detailed fence plan prior to fmal Planning approval to ensure wildlife friendly fencing requirements have been met.

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

Prior t0 Occupancy

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

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

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

85. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to a final inspection by the Environmental Sustainability Department. A Certificate ofOccupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the 87 Resolution N0. 24—21

discretion ofthe Planning Director. provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

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

Deed Restrictions

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

88. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 55-59.

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

Fixed Conditions

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

90. Violation ofany ofthe conditions ofthis approval may be cause for revocation ofthis permit and termination of all rights granted thereunder.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption ofthis Resolution.

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

LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant t0 LCP LIP Section 1320.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489. ext. 246.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-21 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 15‘“ day ofApril. 2024 by the following vote:
619m REBECCA EVANS,QWL Recording Secretary
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Peak. Smith, Leonard NOES: 2 Commissioners: Hill. Mazza ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0
89 Exhibit E
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
2 104
105
106
107

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

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

Planning Commission
Meeting
03-18-24
Item

5.A.

Exhibit F
108

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

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

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

Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject property is located north of Harvester Road between Deerhead Road and Filaree Heights. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are zoned RR-2 and are developed with one- and two-story single-family residences and accessory structures. The project area is not designated ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map. 109

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

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

Table 1 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area. 110

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

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

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

Figure 2 – Color Coded Slope Analysis
Source: Applicant
111

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

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

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

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

Total: 6,852 sq.ft.

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

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

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

The nine remaining LIP chapters do contain required findings: 1) Coastal Development Permit; 2) ESHA; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division.
112

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

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

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

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

PARKING SPACES
Enclosed (10 ft. x18 ft.) 2 3 Complies
Unenclosed (10 ft. x18 ft.) 2 2 Complies
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE (TDSF) (sq. ft.)
TDSF 7,043 6,852 Complies
Primary Residence w/ Attached Garage 5,020
Detached Garage 500
Detached Second Unit 900 900 Complies
Yoga Studio 432
113

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

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

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

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist 114

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

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. A standard condition of approval for this project requires that prior to the issuance of any development permit, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan incorporating construction-phase Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Best Management Practices, must be approved by the City Public Works Department. Additionally, the ocean between Latigo Point and the western City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan.

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

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

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

Finding 1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.
115

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

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

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

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

The following alternatives to the proposed project were considered.

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

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

Proposed Project – The project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence, second unit, swimming pool, yoga studio, and associated development. All proposed uses are permitted uses within the RR-2 zoning designation. The project also complies with the impermeable coverage calculation, TDSF calculation, two-thirds rule, and setback requirements. The City Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and the LACFD reviewed the project site and found the project meets with City’s residential development policies of the LCP and MMC. The proposed development is consistent with existing development in the area and has been determined not to result in adverse impacts. Therefore, there are no project alternatives that would provide a significant benefit to the environment compared to the proposed project. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, with the inclusion of the SPR and is the least environmentally damaging alternative. 116

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the existing development within the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding build environment. Therefore, the portions of the structure exceed 18 feet in height are not anticipated to adversely affect neighborhood character.
117

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As determined by the City Biologist and depicted on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, the subject parcel does not contain ESHA. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.
118

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by City geotechnical staff, LACFD, City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental 119

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As previously stated in Section A, Finding 3, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. 120

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described herein, the subject property and the proposed project do not meet any of these criteria in that no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property, and the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, or 121

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

12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

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

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21

2. Project Plans

3. Story Pole Photos - March 2024

4. Department Review Sheets

5. Public Correspondence

6. Public Hearing Notice
122
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

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

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

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

SECTION 1. Recitals.

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

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

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

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

E. On February 22, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On March 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions 123
Resolution No. 24-21

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

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

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

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

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

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

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

B. Site Plan Review Findings to Allow for Construction in Excess of 18 feet in Height (LIP Section 13.27)
SPR No. 23-024 allows construction of a new single-family residence in excess of the 18 feet in height limit established by LIP Section 3.6(E), with a maximum height of 24 feet for a flat roof. 124
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

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

2. The proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
125
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

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

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

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

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage;
b. 900 square foot attached second unit;
c. 500 square foot detached accessory garage;
d. 432 square foot yoga studio
e. Permeable driveway;
f. Swimming pool;
g. New landscaping; and;
h. OWTS;

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date-stamped March 4, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions 126
Resolution No. 24-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. 127
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

Geology

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

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

Environmental Health

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

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

19. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then a final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). 128
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

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

Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18-inch by 22-inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

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

22. A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that: 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the 129
Resolution No. 24-21

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

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

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

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

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

27. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on ESHA, if applicable.

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

Street Improvements

29. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either 6-inches of concrete over 4-inces of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over 6-inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.
130
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

Grading / Drainage / Hydrology

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

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

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

34. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, post-construction 131
Resolution No. 24-21

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

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

36. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff. 132
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

38. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within LIP Section 17.3.2.B.2.

39. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

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

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

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

42. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

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

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

45. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) d. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.
133
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

Water Quality / Water Service

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

Fire Department

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

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

Construction / Framing

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

51. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.
134
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

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

Colors and Materials

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

Lighting

56. Exterior lighting shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; 135
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

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

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

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

60. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology/Landscaping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67. Invasive plan species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited. 136
Resolution No. 24-21

________________

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

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

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

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

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

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Feature

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

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

3.5.3(A).

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

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

77. The discharge of chlorinated and non-chlorinated pool / spa water into streets, storm drains, creeks, canyons, drainage channels, or other locations where it could enter receiving waters 137
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
is prohibited.

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

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

Fencing and Walls

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

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

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

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

Prior to Occupancy

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

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

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

87. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to a final inspection by the Environmental Sustainability Department. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this 138
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
permit.

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

Deed Restrictions

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

90. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 56-60.

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

Fixed Conditions

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

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2024. _______________________________________
KRAIG HILL Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LCP LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 139
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-21 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
ATTACHMENT 3
159

BIOLOGY REVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
10/5/23
X
160
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

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

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

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

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

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

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

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 161
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

DISCUSSION:

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

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

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

C. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Section 17.53.030). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Section 17.53.030. (form attached) D. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

For approval contact:

Roberto Perez Sandoval
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Paul Van Suchtelen
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-0209
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check. 162
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
163
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
October 5, 2023

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
164

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

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

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

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

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

OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
Rev 141008
June 13, 2023
165

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

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

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

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

Rev 141008
166
167
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
June 13, 2023

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

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

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

Please discuss impact of the proposed grading on the OWTS design and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate.
b. Required capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design. c. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including 168
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 23-019
30053 Harvester Road
June 13, 2023

T:\Project Review\Harvester Rd\30053 Harvester Rd\CDP 23-019\230613_30053 Harvester Rd_CDP 23-019_EH conf ltr_CRC.docx Recycled Paper any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsf). Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics.
e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). [Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
4) Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 5) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
6) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 7) City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 8) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
9) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
10) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
169
170
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project submittals were reviewed from a geotechnical perspective for conformance with applicable codes, 171
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
MAL6263 – 2 –
guidelines and standards of practice, including the following current City adopted standards:
• City of Malibu Local Coastal Program – Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan (LCP-LUP and LCP-LIP)
• Malibu Municipal Code – Title 15, Buildings and Construction • City of Malibu Guidelines for the Preparation of Geotechnical Reports and Procedures for Report Submittal (November 2013) referred to herein as Geotechnical Report Guidelines In the case of conflicting requirements between the Geotechnical Guidelines and any other referenced standards, the latest standard will apply. The Applicant is responsible for complying with the submittal requirements for all Planning variances, as appropriate; any questions regarding variances should be directed to the case Planner.

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

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

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

Coastal Development Permit Review Comments
No further comments.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Please include a detail in the swimming pool plans for the recommended hydrostatic relief valve. 172
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
MAL6263 – 3 –

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

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

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

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

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

173
City of Malibu
– GEOTECHNICAL –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

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

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

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

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

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence require separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety Department for permit information. One set of retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional concerns may be raised at that time which may require a response by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and applicant.
174

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

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

TO:

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

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

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

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
6/27/2023
175
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

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

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

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

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

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

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

2. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
• Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
• Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
• Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading 176
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources

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

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

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

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

STORMWATER

6. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:
177
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

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

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

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

The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
• Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
• Source Control BMP’s
• Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. • Drainage Improvements
178
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - PLN and BPC Reviews/30053 Harvester Rd/CDP 23- 019/Planning/The Public Works/2nd Review/30053 Harvester Road CDP 23-019 COA.docx Recycled Paper
• A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
• A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. • The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.

MISCELLANOUS

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

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

The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
3/4/24
RE: 30053 Harvester Rd. - Malibu Planning Commission Hearing Item #5A Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Steven Kent and the building of his new home on Harvester Rd. We've known Steve for over 10 years. Craig met Steve through mutual friends and over the years has traveled extensively with him. We have all formed a very close friendship. We have also been fortunate enough to have him design two homes for us. One is a fire rebuild on Harvester, very near to Steve’s project, that will soon be our new family home. He has also designed a new home for my parents on Trancas Beach. Both home designs are exquisite.

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

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

Sincerely,
Craig and Stacy Clunies-Ross
Harvester Rd.

Malibu CA 90265
187
188

Supplemental Commission
Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: March 13, 2024 Meeting Date: March 18, 2024 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 and Site Plan Review No. 23- 024 – An application for a new single-family residence, a second unit, and associated development
Location: 30053 Harvester Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4469-009-010
Owner: Steven Kent
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement, plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot detached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road (Kent).

DISCUSSION: This supplemental agenda report provides further clarification on a neighbor’s concerns regarding the potential for Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) on the west side of the subject property. Additionally, a cleanup on the proposed basement plan was submitted by the applicant (Attachment 2). The basement area is now correctly counted in terms of square footage and the proposed lightwell is now consistent with the City’s Basement policy regarding lightwells.

Planning Commission
Meeting
03-18-24
Item

5.A.
189

Potential ESHA
Since the posting of the initial agenda report, staff has received additional correspondence from a neighbor regarding the potential for ESHA to exist on the west side of the subject property. Additionally, the neighbor suggests that there are native protected trees within the area and questioned whether the setback from the trees was properly analyzed. The complete correspondence with the neighbor is attached as Attachment 3. The area of ESHA concern is on the western side of the subject property as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Property Aerial
Source: City GIS 2024
The neighbor contends that the area is a stream with riparian habitat and thus should be subject to the ESHA protections of Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Chapter 4. The area is not mapped ESHA nor a blue line stream pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) maps. Additionally, the applicant submitted a biological inventory dated June 2023 by E Read and Associates, Inc. which summarized the following regarding the area:
“These gullies are not indicated as “blueline” streambeds on the historical USGS map and their hydrologic regimes are best characterized as ephemeral.

No wetland conditions were observed during the survey, and with the exception of an immature sycamore and toyon in the west gully, the dominant vegetation consists of non-native landscape species. Flows from these gullies are conveyed through small underground culverts into storm drains on the 190

property to the south. Openings of the culverts were observed to be clear on the day of the survey, and it can be expected that these culverts are routinely kept clear to avoid flooding. As can be seen in the figures, the USGS map shows an unnamed “blue-line” intermittent streambed east of the property but its location is more than 1,000 feet from the property line.” The City’s Biologist reviewed the report and concurred with the findings, thus approving the project without the need for structure relocation or a variance for encroachment within an ESHA buffer.

Additionally, the neighbor contends that native protected trees, pursuant to LIP Chapter 5 are within the area and was concerned whether the proposed development meets the required setbacks from the protected zones of the trees. The neighbor contends that Toyons and California Black Walnuts are within the area of concern. The biological inventory submitted for the proposed project recognized the Toyon and cited a Sycamore tree within the area. However, the project biologist used the term ”immature” to describe their size. Additionally, the project applicant suggests that the protected tree species within the area are not the minimum size to be considered protected. Pursuant to LIP Section

5.2, to be considered protected by the chapter the trees must have “at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade.” A native tree inventory was not submitted for the subject property because the trees in question exist on the neighboring property. LIP Section 5.3 only requires a native tree inventory be submitted if there are native trees on the subject property. Staff was not able to confirm the size of the native trees within the area. However, even if the size of the native trees met the requirements to be protected by LIP Chapter 5, the proposed development is set back far enough that it would meet the protected zone requirements of the LIP.
“PROTECTED ZONE of a tree protected under Section 5.2 of the Malibu LIP shall mean that area within the dripline of the tree and extending at least five feet beyond the dripline, or 15 feet from the trunk of the tree, whichever is greater.”
The proposed development is sited 20 feet from the western property boundary. Both the neighbor and applicant agree that the tree canopy stops at the property line. The proposed development would meet the protected zone requirements as it would be both more than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree and five feet from the edge of the dripline canopy of the tree.

Basement Cleanup
After the first agenda report was published, staff noticed a discrepancy on the basement plan. The applicant submitted revised plans (Attachment 2) counting the lightwell area as 191

part of the basement as required by the City’s Basement policy. Additionally, a planter area adjacent to the lightwell was corrected so that it does not daylight more than three feet so that it would not be counted towards the lightwell/basement area. The revised lightwell area has increased the size of the basement from 940 square feet to 970 square feet. Lastly, the basement was never mentioned in the original agenda report nor Resolution No. 24-21. The Resolution No. 24-21 has been revised (Attachment 1) to reflect the basement as part of the proposed project. The footprint of the proposed residence is the same as was described in the initial agenda report and the total development square footage has not changed since the basement is under 1,000 square feet. None of the other numbers have been revised either, such as the impermeable coverage limits, since the footprint has not changed. The purpose of the supplemental report was to ensure the basement was properly added to the project scope of work.

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-21

2. Project Plans

3. Correspondence Since Initial Agenda Report Publication 192
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

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

STUDIO, SWIMMING POOL, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE, AND

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

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

SECTION 1. Recitals.

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

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

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

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

E. On February 22, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. On March 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant 193
Resolution No. 24-21

________________
adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on March 18, 2024, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact below, for CDP No. 23-019 to construct a new 4,270 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a 970 square foot basement plus a 750 square foot attached three-car garage, 900 square foot attached second unit, 500 square foot detached garage, 432 square foot yoga studio, swimming pool, grading, landscaping, hardscape, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 23-024 to construct the residence in excess of 18 feet in height, up to 24 feet for a flat roof, located in the Rural Residential located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 30053 Harvester Road.

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

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

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

3. The subject property is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Thus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.
194
Resolution No. 24-21