Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, October 27, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

103
l
. )
01 7. Pursuant to LIP Section 13 .18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.
8, The applicant shall submit three (3) complete sets of plans to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior plan check submittal and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

9. This resolution, the signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the August 3, 2015 Planning Commission agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet of the development plans submitted to the City Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check.

10. The CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. 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.

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

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

13. All development shall confonn to requirements of the City of Malibu Envirorummtal Sustainability Department, City geotechnical staff, City Coastal Engineer, City Biologist, City Environmental Health AdministJ.'ator, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and the LACFD, as applicable.

Notwithstanding this review, all required pennits shall be secured.

14. 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 M.M,C. and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

16. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to. the City prior Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64
· Page 8 of21
104
to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition. · · · !
Cultural Resources
: ..J ·

17. 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 thls infonnation, Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in M.M.C. Section 17.54,040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

18. 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 Califomia Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains a
r
e 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.

Construction and Demolition

19. The property owners and/or their successors in interest shall contract with a City approved hauler to facilitate the recycling of all recoverable/recyclable material.

Recoverable material shall include but shall not be limited to: asphalt, dirt and earthen material, lumber, concrete, glass, metals and drywall.

20. Prior to approval of the final plans, an Affidavit and Certification to. implement a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) signed by the Owner or Contractor shall be submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department for review and approval. The WRRP shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 50 percent of all constI"Uction waste generated by the project. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Public Works Department with a Final Waste Reduction and Recycling Swnrnary Report (Summary Report). The Final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were landfilled or recycled and these materials shall broken-down by material types. The Public Works Department shall approve the final Summary Report.

21. Any building or demolition pennits issued for work commenced or completed without the benefit of required permits are subject to appropriate "Investigation Fees" as required in the Building Code.

22. Upon completion of demolition activities, the applicant shall request a final il\spection by the City Building Safety Division.

23. 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 Planning Commission Resolution No, 15-64

Page 9 ends

105
.J
permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

24. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sourc�s, 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 will be rinsed off prior to leaving the property.

25. Construction debris and sediment shall be proper!y·contained and secured on site with BMPs to prevent the unintended transport of sediment and other debris into coastal waters by wind, rain or tracking.

26. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a.
b.

C.
d,
Geology
Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disw.rbed areas present at a given time;
Grading activities shall be planned during the Southern California dry season (April through October);
During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and benns to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination; and
Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

24. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnicaJ 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 Chy geotechnical staff prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

25. 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 amendment of the CDP or a new CDP, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System

26. 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 Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 10 ends

106
l
. __ I
Wastewater Treatment regulations including provisions of LIP Section 18.9 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of onsite facilities.

27. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final AOWTS plot plan shall be submitted showing an AOWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the p'roposed landscape plan for the developed property. The AOWTS plot plan shall show essential· features of the AOWTS, existing improvements and proposed/new developments. The plot 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).

30. The finaf AOWTS design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above):
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems: The treatment capacity shall be specified in tenns of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing fixture schedule, 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. b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations .
c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 11 ends

107
l

31. 32.

33. I •• •
textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model nwnbers 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. Provide seepage pit cap depth relative to original and finished grades. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infil'tration 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 acceptan<::e 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 AOWTS 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 the Environmental Health Administrator). Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Department.

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.

All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures '(i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Malibu Plumbing Code Table H 1.7) m'ust be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer an a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table H 1.1 setback is reduced.

All proposed reductions in setback form the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table H 1. 7). must also be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California licensed architect, then the required architect's certification Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 12 ends

108
l
.. l
may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setback to the wastewater system; in this case, the engineer must include in his letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback(s), the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during building plan check.

Waterproofing is required for the equipment vaults adjacent to the AOWTS dispersal field (the vaults shall be considered as buildings for purposes of reduced setback requirements).

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

35. An operations and maintenance manual specified by the AOWTS 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 AOWTS following installation.

36. 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.

37. 38.

Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant which runs with the land shall · be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office.

Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the AOWTS serving subject property is an alternative method of onsite wastewater disposal pursuant to the City of Malibu Plumbing Code, Appendix H, Section H 1.10.

Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator and shall be submitted to the City of Malibu with proof of recordation by the Los Angeles County Recorder.

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% 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 an operating permit and/or rep£l.i.rs, 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 use of the private sewage disposal system and) therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-inhabitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair. Said covenant shanbe in a form Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 13 ends

109
·1
'. j
acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department. A certified copy issued by the Los Angeles County Recorder shall be submitted prior to final Environmental Health approval,

39. Final approval by the City geotechnical staff and geotechnical engineer, City Coastal Engineer, and City Planning Department shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

40. In accordance with M.M.C. Chapter 15.14, an application shall be made to the Environmental Sustainability Department for an OWTS operating permit. An operating permit fee shall be submitted with the application and a final fee shall be paid for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specificatlons.

Grading I Drainage I Hydrology

41. 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 rnatedal in compliance with LIP Section

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

42. 43,
The existing 18-inch CMP Caltrans storm drain line located at the western property line shall be repaired using a cured in place pipe liner, Prior to the approval of any permits, the applicant shall obtain a Caltrans encroachment permit for this work, including a traffic control plan. A copy of the encroachment permit shall be. subrnitied to the Public Works ·Department prior to approval of any building permits.

Proposed improvements are located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), An elevation certificate based on construction drawings is required for any building located· within the SFHA. A survey map shall be attached to fuis certificate showing the location of the ropsoed building in relation to the property lines and to the street center line. The survey map shall delineate the boundary of the SFHA zones based on the FIRM flood maps in effect and provide the information for the benchmark utilize, the. vertical datum, and any datum conversion. A post construction elevation certificate will be required to certify the building elevations wl).en the construction is complete and shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final approval of the construction.

44. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan sha11 be provided prior to the fasuance of the grading/building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes, but is not limited to:

Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
l'lannlng Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 14 ends

. . . .... .... .. ••· •-·· • ··-·�·----
110
J
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

45. All 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.

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

Swimming Pool/ Spa
47, 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).

Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a publicly owned wastewater treatment works.

48. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
4 9. Provide a construction note 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 stonn drain per M.M.C. Section 13.04.060(D)(S)." The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property.

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

51. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from view Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 15 ends

111
by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3.

Water Service

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

Lighting

53. Exterior lighting shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light sowce 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 requlred 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.

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

55. No pennanently 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 shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle,

56. 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. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Biology I Landscaping·

57. Vegetation forming a view permeable 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 rr:iaintained at or below 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64
Page16of21
112
l . J
inches in height.

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

59. Vegetation shall be situated .on the property so as to not obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth), 60, Only those plantings included ori the plans submitted on March 10, 2015 are authorized under this CDP. No other plantings are allowed.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

61. The applicant/property shall obtain all required permits, if any, including any necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to commencement of constrnction.

Shoreline Construction Protection

62. 63.
64 65.

66. 67,

68. No stockpiling of dirt or construction materials shall occur on the beach.

Measures to control erosion, runoff, and siltation shall be implemented at the end of .
each day's work.

No machinery shall be allowed in the intertidal zone at any time unless necessary for protection of life and/or property.

All construction debris shall be removed from the beach daily and at the completion of development.

The applicant/property owner shall not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion.

Construction equipment shall not be cleaned on the beach.

Construction debris and sediment shall be property contained and secured on site with BMPs to prevent the unintended transport of sediment and other debris into coastal waters by wind, rain or tracking.

Site Specific Conditions

69. The project is visible from a scenic area, and therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape.

70. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or Planning Commission Resolution No. J 5-64

Page 17 ends

113
... l
light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans.

71. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.

72. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

73. Night lighting for sp01ts courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

74. No pennanently 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 shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot candle.

75. Up-lighting of!andscaping is prohibited.

Prior to Occupancy

76. Prior to the final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City Environmental Sustainability Department a Final Waste Reduction and Recycling Sununary Report ("Summary Report"). The Summary Report shall designate all materials that were land filled or recycled, broken down by material types, The City Environmental Sustainability Department shall approve the Summary Report. 77, The applicant shall request a final planning inspection prior to final building inspection by the City Environmental Sustainability Department. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has detennined that the project complies with the approved CDP. 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.

78. Any construction trailer, storage equipment, portable restroom or similar temporary equipment / structures 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

79. In order to implement the property owner's proposal of an offer to dedicate an easement for lateral public access and passive recreational use along the shoreline as part of this project, the property owner· agrees to complete the following prior to final Planning approval: the property owner shall execute and record a document, in a fonn and content acceptable to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), irrevocably offering Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64
· Pagel8of21
114
80,

81. to dedicate to a public agency or private association approved by the CCC an easement for lateral public access and passive recreational use along the shoreline. The document shall provide that the offer of dedication shall not be used or construed to allow anyone, prior to acceptance of the offer, to interfere with any rights of public access acquired through use which may exist on the property. Such easement shall be located along the entire width of the property from the ambulatory mean high tide line landward to the dripline of the structure. The document shall be recorded free of prior liens which t:he CCC detennines may affect the interest being conveyed, and free of any other encumbrances which may affect said interest. The offer shall run with the land in favor of the People of the State of California, binding all successors and assignees, and the offer shall be in-evocable for a period of 21 years, such period running from the date of recording, The recording document shall include a formal legal description and graphic depiction, prepared by a licensed surveyor, of both the property owner's entire parcel and the easement area.

The property owner is required to aclmowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that the property is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff, and that the property owner asswnes said risks nnd waives any future claims of damage or liability against the City of Malibu and agrees to indemnify the City ·of Malibu against any liability, claims, damages or expenses arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final planning approval.

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, dah1ages, 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 to the Planning Department prior to final planning approval.

82. Prior to final planning approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth previously under Lighting.

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

83. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by the recordation of a deed restriction, that no future repair or maintenance, enhancement, reinforcement, or any other activity affecting the shoreline protection structure which extends the seaward footprint of the subject structure shall be undertaken and that he/she expressly waives any right to such activities that may exist under Coastal Act Section 30235. Said deed restriction shall be submitted to. the Planning Department for approval prior to recordation. The deed restriction shall also acknowledge that t:he intended purpose of the shoreline protection structure is solely to protect the proposed septic disposal Planning Commission Resolutton No, 15-64

Page 19 ends

115
system and that any future development on the subject site landward of the subject shoreline protection structure including changes to the foundation, major remodels, relocation or upgrade of the septic disposal system, or demolition and construction of a new structure shall be subject to a requirement that a new coastal development pennit be obtained for the .shoreline protection structure unless the City determines that such activities are minor.

Fixed Conditions

84. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

85. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and tennination of all rights granted there under.

Section 6. Certification.

The Planning Commission shall certify the adaption of this Resolution; PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September 2015. ��·
ROOHI STACK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
'ft!fitBAkV
. .

KAHLEEN Sbcb STECKO, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal, An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and proper appeal fee. The appellant shall pay fees as specified in the Council adopted fee resolution in effect at the time of the appeal. Appeal fotms and fee schedule may be found. online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL-An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City's Notice of Pinal Action. Appeal fonns may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling (805) 585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City,
Planning Commission Resolution No, 15-64

Page 20 ends

116
r· .. ····•···•-.................................................. ·····-·----··----.· .......... --......... __ ........................... . ...... ..

I
·1
l
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the meeting thereof held on the 21st day of September 2015, by the following vote:

AYES: 3 Commissioners: Brotman, Jennings, Stack
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 2 Commissioners: Mazza, Pierson
W~LEEN_
ckf<f-&.ee,14/ STECKO, ~ Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64

Page 21 ends

117
1 Planning Commission
From: William Overton
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 10:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Members of the Planning Commission,
As a resident of I write in opposition to the application to rezone and change the land use designation for the Nobu Ryokan and Malibu Tidepool Health Club.

Although some of the issues at hand are complex, the decision for the planning commission is quite simple. In seeking a Conditional Development Permit, agents of the owner of the Tidepool property, masked by an LLC shell company, made representations to the city that renovations to the property, to include a swimming pool, had nothing to do with the adjacent Nobu Ryokan. The property was being renovated as an office building and the swimming pool was an amenity for the office and not the adjacent Nobu Ryokan. Many observers, to include members of the Planning Commission, were highly skeptical of these assurances, however, the city took them in good faith and granted the permission to develop the property. If the Planning Commission believes these assurances were made in good faith, they should deny the current application and let the property operate under the conditions they agreed to, based on their representations, when they developed the property.

To do otherwise now would call into question the original representations to the city. Do the members of the Planning Commission honestly believe that the Tidepool property adjacent to the Nobu Ryokan, with common property ownership as the Nobu Ryokan, with the same aesthetic design as the Nobu Ryokan, renovated by the same contractor as the Nobu Ryokan, constructed with the same materials as the Nobu Ryokan and the construction of a swimming pool sitting on pilons drilled into the beach next to the Nobu Ryokan was for the use of an office on the Tidepool property and never intended to be used by the Nobu Ryokan? It defies logic. The subsequent change of use (that was, of course, rubber stamped by the feckless Planning Department staff) to become a private health club with Nobu Ryokan as the sole member further undermines the original representations. If you can’t reasonably rely on the applicant’s representations to obtain their original permission to develop the property, how can you rely the representations in the current application. The current application should, therefore, be denied to maintain the integrity of the planning process.

ATTACHMENT 6
118
2 There are issues such as zoning, the difference between a motel/B&B/hotel, the environmental impact of using the commercial kitchen for unpermitted uses, parking, etc. that are beyond the ken of a neighboring resident simply trying to protect their little bit of paradise. From a practical level, permitting a commercial swimming pool with alcohol service adjacent to a residential apartment building is guaranteed to diminish the quality of life for the residents of that building.

The building where I live at is mere feet from the swimming pool and pool deck on the Tidepool property. You can literally see right into some of the apartments in our building from the pool and deck area. That this impossible to miss fact was not mentioned in the staff report, save for a brief mention of a phone call I initiated with the Assistant Planning Director, or from the Planning Commissioners during the November 6 meeting is a bit dismaying. It is, however, instructive to the residents of Malibu to see the consideration their interests receive when up against wealthy and powerful commercial interests.

If the Planning Commission somehow falls for this latest attempt at manipulation (is it a Bed and Breakfast? Is it a hotel?) and approves the current application, there need to be strict conditions, particularly on the use of the pool and deck. The proposed conditions in the staff report are woefully inadequate.

Noise is the primary concern. The proposed CUP Section 44 prohibits noise emanating from the premises and audible from a distance of five feet from any residential unit from 10:00 P.M. to 07:00 A.M. Is the Planning Commission okay with approving a commercial pool immediately adjacent to private residences that allows noise that is audible from a distance of five feet from any residential unit from 07:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.? Would the members approve such a commercial enterprise mere steps from their homes?

The proposed CUP Section 45 prohibits amplified sound, except that ambient music is allowed in the swimming pool and deck areas. There should be no amplified music, ambient music or live music, period. As mentioned, the neighboring residences are extremely close to the pool and deck area. The fence that was constructed around pool area along with the questionably permitted pool effectively blocks what was once a great ocean view, but doesn’t stop sound.

Virtually everything that happens on the pool deck can be heard inside our apartments. Just the other day an employee was making a phone call from the pool deck and both sides of her speakerphone conversation could be heard inside some of our apartments. Multiply that experience by a handful of hotel guests, add a healthy dose of alcohol (starting at 10:00 A.M.!), and you’ve got quite a nuisance.

If the pool is approved for use, there should be strict limitations on the number of people who can use the deck at any given time. Events and gatherings should be prohibited. There have been a few events serving food and drink and exercise/yoga classes held on the pool deck in the past that were unavoidably visible and audible to the neighboring residents. Although this may seem innocuous, the neighboring residents should be able to decide on their own if they want to be 119
3 awakened by the voice of an instructor or a meditation gong rather than have that decision dictated by an adjacent business.

Section 43 of the proposed CUP includes this boiler plate: “The property owner/operator shall adhere to the ‘good neighbor’ policy, meaning that the operator and employees must respect the rights of neighboring properties…” This sounds good, but the Planning Commissioners already know the applicants are not good neighbors, just look at the subterfuge used to get the permission from the city to develop the property. (And don’t get me started on what the neighboring residents had to endure for the actual development, from deafening noise, to poor air quality, to earthquake level vibrations, and on at least two occasions, threats of physical violence from the construction workers.) If some of the new commissioners believe a combined Nobu Ryokan and Malibu Tidepool Health Club would eagerly comply with the proposed CUP as good neighbors, perhaps some of the more experienced commissioners can bring them up to speed on the years long battle the city has had with serious CUP violations by the Nobu restaurant, an entity with common ownership, oversight and branding as applicants.

Tourists are a lot like honey bees. They’re important and they serve a valuable purpose, but you don’t want them buzzing around your front door. I can understand the desire to not deny the Nobu hotel empire the revenue from one more hotel room, but it is the neighboring residents who will pay the price with an unavoidable diminution of their well‐being and quality of life.

Approving this application would send a message to the community that the city values commercial interests over the interests and well‐being of Malibu residents and those commercial interests can make material misrepresentations to the city to get their nose under the tent and as long as they have deep pockets, good lawyers and patience they can eventually get whatever they want from the city.

This application should be denied.

Thank you for your consideration.

William Overton

120
1 Planning Commission
From: Tracy Lovric <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Elena Eger; Mario Sandoval
Subject: 2023-12-18 Agenda Item 4A MRCA Public Comment
Attachments: 2023-12-13 MRCA to PC.NobuRyokanHotel.final.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attached please find the MRCA’s public comment for Item 4A The Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Tracy Lovric, JD
Project Analyst III
Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority
213.605.2123
https://mrca.ca.gov/coastal-access/
121
MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY King Gillette Ranch 26800 Mulholland Highway
Calabasas, California 91302
PHONE (818) 878-0886
A local public agency exercising joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation & Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code.

December 14, 2023
Sent via email to [email protected]
Chairperson Kraig Hill
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
The Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project – Coastal Development Permit No. 23-046, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16-001, General Plan Map Amendment No. 16-001, Zoning Map Amendment No. 15-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007, Lot Tie No. 21-001, Initial Study No. 17-002, and Negative Declaration No. 19-002
Dear Chair Hill and Planning Commissioners:

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) submits this public comment regarding the Nobu Ryokan Motel/Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project (Project) before you on December 18, 2023, as Item 4A on the City of Malibu Planning Commission’s Agenda.

The MRCA maintains that without requiring vertical access as a condition of approval of the proposed Project, you should not find that the Project is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act regarding public coastal access pursuant to the City’s LCP policy. The City claims no vertical public access should be provided because the project site is located “immediately east of an existing public vertical access way.” However, the closest vertical easement is approximately 518 feet to the east. This does not qualify as “immediately east.” Furthermore, the project is approximately 1,309 feet away from the closest western vertical access. If no vertical public access is provided as part of this Project, there will be an approximately 1,827-foot distance with no access from PCH to the beach. As such, the MRCA requests the City not approve this Project without the requirement of a vertical public accessway to comply with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

Thank you and if you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 605-2123.

Sincerely,
Tracy Lovric, JD
Project Analyst III
122
1 Planning Commission
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Richard Mollica; Adrian Fernandez; Trevor Rusin; Patrick Donegan; [email protected] Subject: Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn: December 18 Planning Commission Item 4.A Attachments: Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn_ December 18 Planning Commission Item 4.A.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon, Chair Hill and Honorable Commissioners.

On behalf of our clients, North Broadway Ventures, LLC, and Wavebreak LLC, we respectfully submit the attached correspondence.

Sincerely,
John
John C. Heintz

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Direct Dial: +1.213.891.7395
Email: [email protected]
Bio: Attorney Profile
https://www.lw.com
_________________________________
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments.

Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at www.lw.com 123
1 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.

Madrid

VIA EMAIL
December 15, 2023
Chair Kraig Hill and Honorable Planning Commissioners
City of Malibu
23815 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn: December 18 Planning Commission Item 4.A Dear Chair Hill and Honorable Commissioners:

On behalf of our clients, North Broadway Ventures, LLC, and Wavebreak LLC, we write to express our support for Planning Staff’s recommendations and respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn at its December 18 meeting.

The existing Ryokan Motel fosters an intimate, tranquil experience for its guests, and it welcomes the opportunity to continue providing this experience following the approval of the requested bed and breakfast inn use. The proposal does not require any structural changes or additions to either of the existing buildings at the Ryokan (22752 PCH) or Tidepool (22762 PCH) properties. Consistent with the Ryokan’s current practice, the proposed Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn will observe quiet hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., seven days a week. It will not have any meeting rooms, there will be no offsite food service, there will be no bar area, and only registered guests will have access to the gym and pool.

At its November 6 meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information from Staff on certain subjects. Since that meeting, we have worked hard with Staff to address the Commission’s questions, including providing detailed responses in a memorandum included as Attachment 3 to the Agenda Report. With this letter, we provide an overview of those responses and address certain other issues raised since the November 6 meeting.

Planning Approvals for the Tidepool Property
As summarized in the Agenda Report, in September 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-64, approving entitlements for the removal of a then-existing 800 square-foot deck and shoreline protection device, construction of a deck with a swimming pool, landscaping, 124
Malibu Planning Commission
December 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

2 and a new onsite wastewater treatment system at the Tidepool property. In September 2016, the City approved Administrative Plan Review No. 16-037 authorizing the interior and exterior remodel of the existing building on the Tidepool property.

As referenced in the Agenda Report, Staff informed the owner that the front yard gates installed in connection with the interior/exterior remodel did not line up with the approved plans. The owner has expeditiously begun taking steps to ensure the front yard gates are consistent with the approved plans, and it expects to complete the necessary remedial work in the next several weeks.

The Tidepool Property’s Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System The City Environmental Health Administrator approved the advanced onsite wastewater treatment system design for the Tidepool property in 2018. The system utilizes a 7,540-gallon treatment tank that employes primary settling, aerobic treatment, final clarification, effluent storage, and disinfection using a gravity-flow ultraviolet disinfection unit. The system also includes a grease and oils separator. Under the assumption that the property would operate conjunctively with the Ryokan, the engineer’s report estimated an expected average flow of 1,206 gallons per day from the Tidepool property. The final City-approved design capacity of 1,808 gallons per day provides a margin of safety of over 600 gallons per day. Following installation of the approved advanced onsite wastewater treatment system in 2018, the design engineer, maintenance contractor, and licensed installation contractor all certified that the system was installed in conformance with the City-approved design and functioned per the design intent.

Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29
As summarized in the Agenda Report, Waterworks District No. 29 confirmed that the project does not require its approval. North Broadway Ventures previously paid $220,845 to Waterworks District No. 29 in June 2015 in connection with the Casa Malibu Inn remodel for the “[f]inancial share of the cost for the design and construction of future Sweetwater water storage reservoir and appurtenances.” And, in connection with installation of the pool at the Tidepool property, at Waterworks District No. 29’s direction, Wavebreak invested tens of thousands of dollars to install a pool draft hydrant.

Ryokan Motel ABC License History
The Ryokan received its ABC licenses prior to its reopening in 2017. We understand that North Broadway Ventures’ former counsel and the City Planning Department (then Planning Director Joyce Parker-Bozylinski) communicated regarding the Ryokan’s proposed ABC license application beginning in late 2014. These discussions continued with former Planning Director Bonnie Blue in early 2015. We further understand that, in early January 2015, Ms. Blue concluded that the Ryokan did not require a conditional use permit for the proposed alcohol service. Following this conclusion, in mid-January 2015, the Ryokan operator, Jozu Hospitality, submitted an application to the ABC for liquor licenses. The application listed Ms. Blue as the “Name of Planner Contacted at Planning Department.”
125
Malibu Planning Commission
December 15, 2023

Page 3 ends

3 Ryokan Motel Lot Zoning
The Agenda Report notes that “[b]ased on all the changes that follow the General Plan and the maps’ internal inconsistencies, it would appear that an oversight for the zoning for the subject lots likely occurred.” We agree. Following the November 6 meeting, we undertook both internet and City database searches and did not locate legislative history explaining why the City zoned the Ryokan lot as Community Commercial. We also searched both the Ryokan and Tidepool properties’ title reports and confirmed that there is nothing recorded on title that would limit future land uses or zone changes.

The Planning Commission has contemplated the proposed zone change since July 2014 when it adopted Resolution No. 14-65 to extend the amortization schedule for the legal nonconforming motel use of the Casa Malibu Inn. On June 17, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19-43 to again extend the amortization schedule “to allow time to process a zone change and [an] [LCP] amendment to change the zoning designation from Community Commercial to Commercial Visitor Serving-Two (CV-2) and process an application for a conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast use in the CV-2 zone.” Swimming Pools at Overnight Transient Accommodations in CV-1 and CV-2 Zones Swimming pools are a common feature at motels, bed and breakfast inns, and hotels throughout California. In Malibu, there are six existing (one of which is the Ryokan) and two approved, tobe-built hotels/motels. Of the six existing establishments, we understand three have pools available to guests: the Hotel June Malibu (28920 PCH, CV-1 Zone), the M Malibu (22541 PCH, CV-1 Zone), and the Malibu Country Inn (6506 Westward Beach Road, CV-1 Zone). Both of the approved to-be-built hotels/motels, the “Sea View Hotel”1 project (22729 and 22741 PCH, CV-2 Zone) and the “Malibu Inn Motel”2 project (22959 PCH, CV-1 Zone), contemplate pools.

At its November 6 meeting, the Planning Commission raised a question related to the reference to swimming pools in LIP Appendix 1, Table B (Permitted Uses). Table B includes the following “Use” under the “Recreation and Leisure” use types: “Recreation facilities (swimming pools, sandboxes, slides, swings, lawn bowling, volleyball courts, tennis courts and similar uses).” The LIP permits “recreation facilities” uses with a CUP in the CV-1 and CV-2 zone “if available to general public.” The reference to “[r]ecreation facilities” “available to the general public” is not applicable to this project. North Broadway Ventures and Wavebreak are not proposing to construct or operate a “recreation facility.” They have requested a CUP to operate a bed and breakfast inn, which is a separate use type under the “Recreation and Leisure” use category in Table B. The existing pool at the Tidepool property will be offered as an amenity for bed and breakfast inn guests. The pool is a component of the bed and breakfast inn, not an independent, stand-alone use. Because the LIP permits bed and breakfast inns with a CUP in the CV-1 and CV-2 zones, it also permits bed and breakfast inns’ associated features. 1 City Council Resolution No. 21-45.
2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24.
126
Malibu Planning Commission
December 15, 2023

Page 4 ends

4 Earlier this year, the Planning Commission confirmed the inapplicability of the “recreation facility” provisions in Table B to pool uses at overnight accommodation facilities when approving the Malibu Inn Motel. As recognized by former Planning Commissioner Jeff Jennings in connection with the approval, pools are within the definition of a motel.3 Commissioner Smith also noted that “motels have pools,” and Chair Peak advised that motels in Malibu have pools.

Further, when the City Council approved the Sea View Hotel, it expressly prohibited non-guests from using the pool, providing that “[t]he rooftop deck, swimming pool and spa shall be open to registered guests of the hotel only.”
Again, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, and motels commonly have pools. It would be contrary to the law, the LCP, City Council and Planning Commission precedent, and equity, to not allow the Ryokan to use the pool in the same manner as the pools at other existing and approved overnight accommodations in Malibu.

The Proposed Ryokan Conjunctive Use is Appropriately Characterized as a Bed and Breakfast Inn
The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding why the proposed conjunctive use is characterized as a “bed and breakfast inn” rather than a “hotel” under the Municipal Code and LCP. Based on a review of existing overnight accommodations in the City, and Planning Commission and City Council recent approvals of new facilities, the distinguishing feature between hotels and motels/bed and breakfast inns is whether the facility provides additional services to non-guests. As discussed below, the proposed use is properly characterized as a bed and breakfast inn use because, unlike hotels, the proposed Ryokan Bed and Breakfast Inn will not provide any additional services for non-guests.

Bed and breakfast inns are in the same LCP use category as “motels.” The Planning Commission has recently approved “motel” projects that currently or will offer similar amenities for motel guests as the Ryokan proposes for its bed and breakfast guests, demonstrating that the City does not interpret these types of amenities to convert a motel or bed and breakfast inn to a hotel.

For example, in April 2016 and October 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Surfrider Malibu (23033 PCH) as a motel with a “bar area” and a kitchen.4 In July 2023, the Planning Commission approved the proposed Malibu Inn Motel (22959 PCH) as a motel.5 The Malibu Inn Motel project includes a pool and an “onsite kitchen” permitted to “serve food and beverages to motel guests.” The Planning Commission confirmed that these amenities – pool and kitchen – did not convert the proposed motel into a hotel.

The Planning Commission approvals of the Surfrider Malibu and Malibu Inn Motel can be contrasted with the City Council’s recent approval of the Sea View Hotel (22729 and 22741 3 May 31, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting, starting at approximately 2:51:00, available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQiDBabRlzE.
4 CDP No. 15-12 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-68. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24.
127
Malibu Planning Commission
December 15, 2023

Page 5 ends

5 PCH) and with the existing Malibu Beach Inn (22878 PCH). The City Council approved the Sea View Hotel project as a hotel with a restaurant and bar that will be open and available to nonguests of the hotel.6 The Malibu Beach Inn, a hotel, also has a restaurant/bar open to non-hotel guests.7

The Project Provides Access and Passive Recreational Use Along the Shoreline On December 14, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority submitted a comment letter to the Planning Commission requesting vertical access as a condition of approval for the project. As previously recognized by the Planning Commission when approving the coastal development permits for the Ryokan remodel and the pool installation at the Tidepool, “[n]o legitimate governmental or public interest would be furthered by requiring vertical access at the project site because: 1) existing access to coastal resources is adequate; and 2) the proposed project will not impact the public’s ability to access the shoreline or other coastal resources.”8 Existing access to coastal resources is adequate given the vertical access immediately east of the site next to Nobu Malibu and west of the site at the Malibu Pier. The project does not propose any new structural changes or additions to either of the existing buildings. Both properties have been fully developed for decades, and each has recorded irrevocable offers to dedicate lateral easements in support of the Coastal Act’s and LCP’s access policies. As recognized in the Agenda Report, given these dedications, the project site provides “access and passive recreational use along the shoreline.”
Conclusion
We trust the information in the Agenda Report, our detailed memorandum attached to the Agenda Report, and this letter, have addressed the Planning Commission questions raised on November 6, and we respectfully request your favorable recommendation on December 18.

Respectfully submitted,
John C. Heintz
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
cc: Mr. Richard Mollica
Mr. Adrian Fernandez
Mr. Trevor L. Rusin, Esq.

Mr. Patrick T. Donegan, Esq.

James L. Arnone, Latham & Watkins LLP
6 City Council Resolution No. 21-45.
7 See https://www.malibubeachinn.com/dining.
8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-32 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-64. 128
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 12:40 AM
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Kraig Hill
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Patt Healy; R N
Subject: Fwd: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16-001, 15-001, CUP 16-007 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Planning Commission:

I am reforwarding my correspondence regarding the above with these additions:

The staff report:

1. FAILED to Address the requirement, financial amount, and recipient entity for payment of low cost accommodation in-lieu fees.

2. FAILS to address the current code violation of the existing swimming pool at adjacent Tidepool Gallery that is coveted by, and proposed for annexation by Nobu Ryokan into its Hotel operations. The existing pool use would be required to be open to the general public per existing State law as contained in the Malibu Local Coastal Plan and Malibu Municipal Code. The pool must be a PUBLIC use when in zoning CV-1 or CV-2. See chart below. A pool IS a recreational facility and not attached to a motel/hotel definition in the MMC or LCP. If pools will be applied in the future for hotels and motels then an LCP amendment needs to be completed allowing their use.

3. FAILS to address the current and ongoing code violations of improper and insufficient parking for the existing uses and the proposed intensification of uses via expansion of overnight accommodation facilities, the increased square footage of development, and the addition of the swimming pool and its outdoor hotel service area. The adjacent Soho House and Nobu cause regular traffic backups in the immediate area due to their lack of parking and valet lines.

4. The intensification of use proposes independent sewage treatment and disposal. All existing and proposed uses must conform to independent analysis and review by City staff and Planning Commission that the actual uses will comport to the general formulae for uses and on-site disposal on the beachfront lot(s) and will not cause increased risk of sewage pollution to public beaches and adjacent private property.

5. Hotel uses require a minimum of two parking spaces per sleeping room in addition to allocation for additional support staff and amenities. The total parking requirement has not been properly calculated nor disclosed – for which an appropriate adjustment by the City for good judgment is warranted.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. 129
2 Jo Drummond
President Malibu Township Council
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jo Drummond <[email protected]>
Date: November 5, 2023 at 12:55:54 PM PST
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>, K Hill <[email protected]>, John Mazza <[email protected]>
Cc: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>, R N <[email protected]>, Patt Healy <[email protected]> Subject: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16‐001, 15‐001, CUP 16‐007 Planning Commission:

The applicants’ whole proposal is entirely supported on a plethora of variances that would be required.

The planning department needs to follow the MALIBU LCP codes for the above application or request all these variances. See below:

Pool
Any swimming pools in both CV-1 and CV-2 MUST be open to the public – see p 329 on at this link - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-lip-final.pdf - they both have a specific footnote #9 that states “pool uses permitted only if available to the general public”. Best case a variance could possibly be granted for a “hotel” not a motel/inn.
130
3 131
4 Parking requirements for Hotel
Hotels require two parking spots per room and 1 per employee. So a minimum of 36 spaces with just two employees. With the pool, kitchen and health club there would need at least 4 more employees. The Negative Declaration states that there will be 8 per shift employees so that means they are at least 17 parking spaces short. The driveways to the east and west of this property only provide only 25 spots - they are grossly under parked and will cause even further traffic and parking problems along PCH such as caused by Nobu. More accidents and deaths will happen here. See:

17.48.030 Specific parking
requirements. https://library.qcode.us/lib/malibu_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_1 7-chapter_17_48-17_48_030
It is a hotel not a motel/inn because the parking spots are not directly outside the room doors and has accessory uses such as all day dining, alcohol service, massages, gym, etc. Please see this review from the NY Times and the attached - The Anxiety of the $2,300-a-Night Hotel Room (Published 2019) To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the The Anxiety of the $2,300-a-Night Hotel Room (Published 2019)
Spending the equivalent of a down payment on a car for
one night at the Japanese-inspired Nobu Ryokan in
Malibu,...

Because it is not zoned for hotel use an LCP Amendment needs to be completed.

Parking is not allowed anywhere further than 300 ft from the property as was ruled in the Malibu Beach Inn’s application for change in parking and a pool that was denied a few years ago.
132
5 Valet parking is a detriment to the city’s evacuation plan. It’s an emergency preparedness deficit. And this hotel can only function with this kind of parking and is nowhere noted in the staff report or ND.

Traffic Study Required
The intensity of the use is increasing with the change from a motel to a hotel with restaurant and bar service. Especially with the lack of parking required for this zoning change which will increase the number of cars into the driveways, etc. and likely cause more accidents in the area.

The Negative Declaration traffic analysis doesn’t reflect the reality of the traffic problem on this part of PCH. Realistically, there is traffic gridlock and severe traffic backup on a regular and continuing basis during rush hour, on weekends and in the summer and it is significant and not mitigable. This project will create additional car trips which should not be allowed making the traffic situation incrementally worse in this already jammed and under parked area.

During rush hour westbound traffic is often backed up all the way to Carbon Canyon. On a good day traffic is backed up during rush hour from Nobu to Cross Creek Rd. Often, it is backed up going eastbound also. The fire at Soho House last year caused terrible traffic backup during evacuation and emergency vehicles could not even enter the driveway and this right-turn only set up will cause even worse delays and risk to patrons.

Affordable Accommodations Not Met
Adjustments for low-income accommodations must be made according to the Coastal Commission.

The proposed hotel development does not meet section 30212 of the Coastal Act to provide lower-cost visitor facilities when feasible. In fact, there is nothing in the record here that speaks of the infeasibility of providing a lower-cost project instead of this proposed high-cost development. An analysis is required in order to fully address the project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan. The applicant shall be required to provide lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. The average night of a hotel room here is between $2k & $4k per night as was stated in the above article also. NOT affordable in any way. The payment of an in-lieu fee based on a 17-luxury room hotel into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower-cost overnight facilities per required unit plus inflation is drastically insufficient to realistically supplant the option 133
6 to provide lower-cost visitor accommodations on-site or off-site in Malibu, one of the highest priced California coastal real estate areas. None of the above is in the conditions of approval where the applicant must pay an in-lieu fee.

No soaking tubs should be allowed
With the addition of one new room no additional fixtures have been applied for which should happen. Also soaking tubs use much more water all at the same time in this use (i.e. in the mornings) and must be affecting the septic use. If the septic system was reconfigured for a hotel use they would likely be out of compliance.

Malibu Tidepool Health Club?
Also the Malibu Tidepool Health Club does not exist actually from all online searches so not sure how any conversion of this property can be considered given it does not exist nor have any existing permits or use.

This is only a few items that need to be addressed before this can be approved.

Please deny this application until this can be rectified. Thank you, Jo Drummond
President - Malibu Township Council
134
7 135
1 From: Hasbun, Jonathan@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:58 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Christensen, Deanna@Coastal <[email protected]> Subject: Dec 18 Hearing Item 4A ‐ Nobu Ryokan Motel
Hi Adrian,
Item 4A for the December 18 Malibu Planning Commission is regarding the Nobu Ryokan Motel. Our office submiƩed a comment leƩer for the November 6th Planning Commission and the item was conƟnued to this upcoming hearing. Could you please aƩach our comment leƩer dated November 3, 2023 to the current staff report materials for the record? Also, can you confirm whether an in lieu fee was paid to the City as part of CDP 13‐004 (and if so, fee amount paid)? Thank you!
Jonathan Hasbun
Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
South Central Coast District
89 S California St
Ventura, CA 93001
136

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001-2801
PH (805) 585-1800 FAX (805) 641-1732
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
November 3, 2023
Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Subject: The Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project – Coastal Development Permit No. 23-046, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16-001, General Plan Map Amendment No. 16-001, Zoning Map Amendment No. 15-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007, Lot Tie No. 21- 001, Initial Study No. 17-002, and Negative Declaration No. 19-002 Dear Mr. Fernandez:

Commission staff has reviewed the staff report for the subject coastal development permit and LCP amendment that is scheduled to be considered by the Malibu Planning Commission on November 6, 2023, and we have the following comments regarding this item. The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing 16-room Nobu Ryokan Motel, and expansion into the adjacent private Malibu Tidepool Health Club, to be operated conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn. The project also involves an interior remodel of the Malibu Tidepool Health Club building to convert interior space into a new guest suite and reconfigure the existing gym and kitchen. The resulting combined development and uses would include transient lodging accommodations (17 guestrooms) with kitchen facilities, a 300 square foot gym, a 600 square foot swimming pool and the sale of alcohol beverages for consumption by guests of the facility only.

The City’s staff report for this item does not include an analysis of the project’s conformance with the luxury overnight accommodations provision of the LCP. The Malibu LCP states that the City may approve new luxury overnight visitor serving accommodations if the evidence shows, and the City finds, that the proposed project provides a component of lower cost overnight visitor accommodations. The lower cost visitor accommodations may be provided on-site, off-site, or through payment of an inlieu fee into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower-cost overnight facilities in the Malibu-Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone and area of Los Angeles County or Ventura County. Applicants are required to provide lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. The LCP defines luxury overnight accommodations as the point at which the cost of an overnight room exceeds 120 percent of the median cost of an overnight room for all overnight accommodations in the City of Malibu.

When the existing motel at 22752 PCH was remodeled in 2013 pursuant to CDP 13- 004, the applicant proposed and was conditioned to pay the required luxury overnight 137
2 accommodation mitigation in-lieu fee for the 16 rooms, consistent with LIP Section

12.10. However, it is unclear whether that fee was paid to the City. Further, the current proposal includes adding a new guest suite, which would be subject to LIP Section

12.10. We recommend that the City’s staff report include additional information and analysis regarding the project’s consistency with the new luxury overnight accommodation policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hasbun
Coastal Program Analyst
138
1 From: Hasbun, Jonathan@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Christensen, Deanna@Coastal <[email protected]>; Gonzalez, Denise@Coastal <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5.A. ‐ Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project ‐ Comment Letter Hi Adrian,
Please see the aƩached document for our comments regarding Item 5.A. (Nobu Ryokan Motel and Malibu Tidepool Health Club Project) for the upcoming November 6, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing.

Please let me know if you have any quesƟons, thank you! Jonathan Hasbun
Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
South Central Coast District
89 S California St
Ventura, CA 93001
139

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

When the existing motel at 22752 PCH was remodeled in 2013 pursuant to CDP 13- 004, the applicant proposed and was conditioned to pay the required luxury overnight 140
2 accommodation mitigation in-lieu fee for the 16 rooms, consistent with LIP Section

12.10. However, it is unclear whether that fee was paid to the City. Further, the current proposal includes adding a new guest suite, which would be subject to LIP Section

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hasbun
Coastal Program Analyst
141
1 Planning Commission
From: Bill Sampson
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 5A, November 6, 2023 meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Commissioners:

The "Tide Pool" scam, and that is what it is, is simply an attempt to add a swimming pool to a motel - or do they want to call it a hotel. The staff report makes it clear that the applicant(s) simply want to have a private swimming pool without calling the new entity a hotel. There is inadequate parking provided. They are already operating illegally - why rubber stamp approval of that illegality? Health club? - completely bogus. They are combining properties without following the actual steps required in order to build a hotel which barely (if at all) meets the requirements for a motel. This area is Malibu's poster-child for ignoring our codes. Don't participate in that intentional ignorance.

Turn down this ill-conceived and illegal project.

Bill Sampson
ATTACHMENT 4
142
1 Planning Commission
From: Charlotte Frieze
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Jo Drummond;
Subject: 2023-11-6 Planning Commission Meeting Item 5A: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16-001, 15-001, CUP 16-007
Attachments: 2023-11-6 Nobu Ryokan.docx
Please distribute this letter and include it in the meeting minutes. Thank you very much, Charlotte
‐‐
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
143

MALIBU OPEN SPACE ALLIANCE
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16-001, 15-001, CUP 16-007 SENT VIA EMAIL November 6, 2023
Honorable Commissioners:

I write concerning the Proposal for the Nobu Ryokan.

First of all, this area is NOT zoned for HOTEL USE.

An LCP Amendment is required.

At a time when traffic, speeding and parking on PCH are at the top of everyone’s mind, it is imperative that these changes to the Ryokan Hotel not proceed.

After the tragic recent deaths of four college students, Malibu is trying to discourage car rallies and speeding on PCH. Nevertheless, the Ryokan Hotel PR promotes it as a driving destination as in the Robb Report that suggests renting a flashy sports car for up to $1199 per day for the drive to the Ryokan.
144
It is especially important that the Planning Commission follow the Malibu LCP codes for the application.

Malibu parking requirements for hotels is two spaces per room and 1 per employee. The Negative Declaration states that there will be 8 per shift employees so that means the hotel is at least 17 parking spaces short.

The driveways to the east and west of this property will only provide 25 spaces, nowhere near the number required for this project.

This proposal is unconscionably under parked and will unquestionably cause further traffic and parking problems along PCH.

We are all familiar with the blocked lanes around Nobu in the summer, weekends, and holidays. Remember it is close to Surfing, Legacy Park, and Bluffs Park. There is high pedestrian traffic. During the summer, these high use public parks are already affected by the parking back up at Nobu. This additional lack of parking and valet parking can only lead to more accidents and possibly deaths.

A traffic study is definitely required. Especially a traffic study that considers evacuation during emergencies and all the additional driveways in this section of PCH. Valet parking is a nightmare for those trying to evacuate.

See: 17.48.030 Specific parking
requirements. https://library.qcode.us/lib/malibu_ca/pub/municipal_code/ite m/title_17-chapter_17_48-17_48_030
145
The PR for Nobu boasts a pool and in room soaking tubs. A septic review is necessary. Soaking tubs should not be allowed.

The Malibu Tidepool Health Club does not exist online. You might investigate if this is due to no permits.

With rates that exceed $2,000 per night, it goes without saying that the Nobu Ryokan development does not make a consideration for low-income accommodations as required by the Coastal Commission Section 30212.

Further study is required.

Please deny this application until expert studies can be completed and scrupulously evaluated.

Thank you for your consideration,
Charlotte M Frieze
Founding Member
146
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza
Cc: Rebecca Evans; R N; Patt Healy
Subject: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16-001, 15-001, CUP 16-007 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Planning Commission:

The applicants’ whole proposal is entirely supported on a plethora of variances that would be required.

The planning department needs to follow the MALIBU LCP codes for the above application or request all these variances. See below:

Pool
Any swimming pools in both CV-1 and CV-2 MUST be open to the public – see p 329 on at this link - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-lip-final.pdf - they both have a specific footnote #9 that states “pool uses permitted only if available to the general public”. Best case a variance could possibly be granted for a “hotel” not a motel/inn.
147
2 148
3 Parking requirements for Hotel
Hotels require two parking spots per room and 1 per employee. So a minimum of 36 spaces with just two employees. With the pool, kitchen and health club there would need at least 4 more employees. The Negative Declaration states that there will be 8 per shift employees so that means they are at least 17 parking spaces short. The driveways to the east and west of this property only provide only 25 spots - they are grossly under parked and will cause even further traffic and parking problems along PCH such as caused by Nobu. More accidents and deaths will happen here. See:

Because it is not zoned for hotel use an LCP Amendment needs to be completed.

Parking is not allowed anywhere further than 300 ft from the property as was ruled in the Malibu Beach Inn’s application for change in parking and a pool that was denied a few years ago.
149
4 Valet parking is a detriment to the city’s evacuation plan. It’s an emergency preparedness deficit. And this hotel can only function with this kind of parking and is nowhere noted in the staff report or ND.

Affordable Accommodations Not Met
Adjustments for low-income accommodations must be made according to the Coastal Commission.

The proposed hotel development does not meet section 30212 of the Coastal Act to provide lower-cost visitor facilities when feasible. In fact, there is nothing in the record here that speaks of the infeasibility of providing a lower-cost project instead of this proposed high-cost development. An analysis is required in order to fully address the project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the Malibu Land Use Plan and Chapter 12 (Public Access Ordinance) of the Local Implementation Plan. The applicant shall be required to provide lower cost overnight accommodations consisting of 15 percent of the number of luxury overnight accommodations that are approved. The average night of a hotel room here is between $2k & $4k per night as was stated in the above article also. NOT affordable in any way. The payment of an in-lieu fee based on a 17-luxury room hotel into a fund to subsidize the construction of lower-cost overnight facilities per required unit plus inflation is drastically insufficient to realistically supplant the option 150
5 to provide lower-cost visitor accommodations on-site or off-site in Malibu, one of the highest priced California coastal real estate areas. None of the above is in the conditions of approval where the applicant must pay an in-lieu fee.

This is only a few items that need to be addressed before this can be approved.

Please deny this application until this can be rectified. Thank you, Jo Drummond
President - Malibu Township Council
151
6 152
1 Lauren Williams
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:22 PM
To: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ryokan Bed and Breakfast: November 6 Planning Commission Item 5.A Hi, Adrian.

Please see the attached correspondence.

Of course, please let us know if you have any questions.

Very best,
John
John C. Heintz

Madrid
November 6, 2023
Mr. Adrian Fernandez
Assistant Planning Director
City of Malibu
23815 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Ryokan Bed and Breakfast: November 6 Planning Commission Item 5.A.

Dear Mr. Fernandez:

On behalf of our clients, North Broadway Ventures, LLC and Wavebreak LLC, we provide the following information in response to questions raised after the publishing of the Agenda Report.

Luxury Overnight Accommodations In-Lieu Fees
In a letter dated November 3, 2023, California Coastal Commission staff asked about the status of the new luxury overnight accommodations in-lieu fees from the 2013 Planning Commission’s approval of the Ryokan remodel.
1 In connection with the Planning Commission’s approval of the 2013 remodel, the owner (North Broadway Ventures) volunteered to pay new luxury overnight accommodations in-lieu fees in accordance with Section 12.10 of Malibu’s Local Implementation Plan.
2 North Broadway Ventures made this payment to the City in August 2013.

Our clients once again volunteer to pay the luxury overnight accommodations in-lieu fee set forth in LIP Section 12.10 for the additional room proposed as part of the current application.

Accordingly, we volunteer that the following condition be added:

Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the property owner must pay the in-lieu fee for the lower cost overnight accommodations in compliance with LIP Section 12.10. 1 See City of Malibu Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-32, approving Coastal Development Permit 13-004. 2 See id., at p. 13 (“Nevertheless, to ensure the project supports lower cost visitor-serving policies, the applicant has elected to add to the project description a voluntary payment consistent with the provisions found in LIP Section

12.10 which call for providing lower cost accommodations for 15 percent of the luxury accommodations that are approved …”).
154
Mr. Adrian Fernandez
November 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Board Licenses
The Ryokan (22752 PCH) currently provides alcohol service for motel guests pursuant to Type 66 and Type 70 licenses issued by California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. There is no alcohol service at the Tidepool property (22762 PCH). The approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007 will permit the expansion of the licensed service areas to the Tidepool property (including the pool/deck area and the proposed guest room). 3 Existing Health Club at the Tidepool Property
The Malibu Tidepool Health Club currently operates at the Tidepool property. As noted in the November 1, 2023, Agenda Report, the operation of a health club at the Tidepool property is a permitted use under the property’s current land use designation and zoning. The Malibu Tidepool Health Club has been operating at the property since 2017. It is a private, membershipbased club.

Prior to opening the health club, the Tidepool property served as an office building. In May 2016, Wavebreak’s representative submitted a “Planning Clearance Application” to request a change of use to permit a health club at the Tidepool property. Planning staff approved the application. Following that approval, Planning staff raised concerns about the use of the swimming pool at the health club.

From late-2016 to mid-2017, there were letters and communications between Wavebreak’s representatives and the City related to the health club and the use of the pool by Ryokan guests.

While Wavebreak did not believe it was required to do so, it agreed to suspend use of the pool in July 2017, thereafter operating the health club without using the pool pending the City’s consideration of the conjunctive use application that is currently pending.

The Ryokan motel has a corporate membership in the Malibu Tidepool Health Club that gives its guests access to the club and its services (i.e., the small fitness room and the kitchen). This is similar to other overnight accommodations providers that support their guests’ desire for wellness during their stays through arrangements with nearby fitness facilities.

We appreciate Staff’s time and effort on this project, and we look forward to the Planning Commission’s consideration this evening.

Very truly yours,
John C. Heintz
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
3 Extension of the service area will still require California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control approval following the City’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007. 155
1 Planning Commission
From: R Y A N
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Charlotte Frieze; Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza Cc: Rebecca Evans; Jo Drummond;
Subject: Re: 2023-11-6 Planning Commission Meeting Item 5A: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16-001, 15-001, CUP 16-007
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I decided not to raise the issue, but Charlotte has:

The destination location has a history of hosting commercial Special Events and attracting the media, paparazzi, and star‐gazing tourists. The June 4, 2018, United States debut of PORSCHE's first all‐electric concept vehicle occurred there, and I took a photo of it myself as I was impacted by the event. I attach that photo.

Later, I found the promotional video, which exists on multiple YouTube account platforms (below) and for which the Sheriff blocked all PCH traffic so that the vehicle could exit onto Pacific Coast Highway without getting hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBADJfA5Bo4&pp=ygUdbWlzc2lvbiBlIGNvbmNlcHQgZmlyc3Qgdm9sZWs %3D
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 156
2 Driven! The Porsche Mission E Taycan
Cross Turismo Concept Electric Vehicle
The all-electric Porsche Mission E Cross Turismo Concept gets driven in the wild for the first time! It's production name will be Taycan Cross Turismo. Tom Voelk gets
behind the wheel and drives the twisty roads above
Malibu, California. This is a very deep dive into what
Porsche has coming in 2019 as it readies it’s first allelectric ... www.youtube.com
I previously sent this photo I took to then‐councilmember Peak in 2018 on June 15, 2018, after the video came out and I listed it with a link.
157
3 158
4 Ryan
From: Charlotte Frieze
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Kraig John Mazza Cc: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Jo Drummond
Subject: 2023‐11‐6 Planning Commission Meeting Item 5A: Nobu Ryokan LCP amendment 16‐001, 15‐001, CUP 16‐007

Please distribute this letter and include it in the meeting minutes. Thank you very much, Charlotte
‐‐
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
159
ATTACHMENT 7
Additional Background Information
22752 & 22762 PCH
On November 6, 2023, the Planning Commission requested additional background information on the following topics. This information was provided to the Planning Commission as part of their December 18, 2023 hearing and recommendation to the City Council for adoption and approval:
1) History of the Tidepool site since 2015;
2) Capacity of the existing onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); 3) Whether the proposed change in occupancy results in a change in Water District approval;
4) History of the Ryokan Motel Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license; 5) History of the Community Commercial (CC) zoning designation; 6) Whether the swimming pool is a permitted use; and
7) Whether the hotel use is more appropriate than a bed and breakfast inn.

The following summarizes staff’s responses to the Planning Commission and other updates provided to the City since December 2023 for the City Council’s consideration.
1) History of the Tidepool site since 2015
Research of City permits on-file showed that prior to the application for CDP No. 13-066, the building was permitted as a sales office related to commercial businesses (e.g., furniture, appliances, and boats) but did not indicate that any residential use was approved for the building. However, there is an indication of an onsite residential use on the plan for the renovation of the existing OWTS approved by the City in 1996 and those plans identified a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor, and commercial area on the first floor. In 2011, a building permit was issued for tenant improvements to the building with no exterior modifications; however, there was the inclusion of an interior remodel of the first floor to include the kitchen that exists today and the second story was shown as “open space” with interior walls between rooms removed.

Based on permit history, no commercial food sales have been permitted. A grease interceptor tank was included as part of the OWTS upgrade. CDP No. 13-066 allowed for onsite staff to consume the food prepared in the kitchen and the kitchen was to be used for non-commercial purposes related to the property owner’s private chef preparing food for the property owner’s guests staying at other properties. To ensure compliance with the statements above, CDP No. 13-066 was approved with the condition of approval, as follows:
160
ATTACHMENT 7

28. No commercial food sales are permitted. Although a grease interceptor tank is included as part of the wastewater system upgrade, the project scope submitted does not include a commercial kitchen for food sales to the public. The scope of this conformance review does not include consideration of the adequacy of the AOWTS for a commercial kitchen for public food service. Food preparation for offsite consumption in association with a commercial use is not allowed without prior approval by the City Environmental Health Administrator and the Los Angeles County Health Department. (emphasis added)
On September 27, 2016, the Planning Director approved Administrative Plan Review (APR) No. 16-037 for an interior/exterior remodel, parking lot restriping, and fencing and walls at 22762 PCH (Tidepool). The APR application also authorized the use of a commercial scale kitchen, conversion of the upstairs apartment to office and removal of office from the garage. It was calculated that the required parking spaces for the uses at the site were eight and the restriping added a total of 10 parking spaces including one Americans with Disability Act (ADA) parking space. Planning staff had conducted a final inspection at 22762 PCH (Tidepool) and found the site in compliance with the approved plans, with the exception of the front yard fence which was approved with the portion over 42 inches in height to be open, view permeable and the existing fencing did not comply with this condition. Staff informed the applicant to address the front yard fence and gate and they agreed to revise the front yard fence and gate to comply with approved plans prior to a City Council hearing in consideration of the proposed application. On August 31, 2025, the applicant confirmed that the front yard fence and gate were modified in early 2024 to address the City-identified concern with height.
2) Capacity of the OWTS
An OWTS report, dated April 15, 2018, for the proposed bed and breakfast inn use was submitted in consideration of the proposed project. The report accounted for a cooking facility serving 17 guest rooms and 34 total guests. On October 17, 2018, the City Environmental Health Administrator approved a revised site plan, which included the capacity of the cooking facility, bed and breakfast inn use, swimming pool, gym, spa and minibar.

Each property has an existing alternative onsite wastewater treatment system (AOWTS) that has been carefully designed and approved by the City Environmental Health Administrator as part of prior CDPs to handle the flow (with a substantial margin of safety) from the buildings. The proposed bed and breakfast inn would not increase wastewater demand beyond the AOWTS design flow at either property.
161
ATTACHMENT 7
22752 PCH (Ryokan): The wastewater design engineer, Ensitu Engineering, prepared a report providing the engineering design for the AOWTS to replace the existing system. The City Environmental Health Administrator approved the design on July 26, 2013.13 The approved AOWTS utilizes a 4,000-gallon equalization tank with approximately 3.5 days of hydraulic retention time. It also employs primary settling, aerobic treatment, final clarification, effluent storage, and disinfection using a gravity-flow ultraviolet disinfection unit. The engineer’s report estimated an average flow of 764 gallons per day (gpd) from the Ryokan motel.

The approved design basis is 1,270 gpd, providing a margin of safety of around 500 gpd. Following installation of the AOWTS, the design engineer, maintenance contractor, and licensed installation contractor certified that the AOWTS was installed in conformance with the City approved design and functioned per the design intent. In connection with the proposed bed and breakfast inn, there are no proposed changes to bed count or operations at 22752 PCH. The AOWTS will continue to accept discharge from 16 guestrooms at this parcel, which are accounted for in the City-approved AOWTS design. The proposed 17th guest room will be located at 22762 PCH (Tidepool) and discharge to that AOWTS. 22762 PCH (Tidepool): The wastewater design engineer, Ensitu Engineering prepared a report providing the engineering design for the proposed AOWTS. The City Environmental Health Administrator approved the AOWTS design on October 30, 2018.17 The system utilizes a 7,540-gallon treatment tank that employs primary settling, aerobic treatment, final clarification, effluent storage, and disinfection using a gravity-flow ultraviolet disinfection unit. The system also includes a grease and oils separator. Under the assumption that the property would operate conjunctively with 22752 PCH (Ryokan), the engineer’s report estimated an expected average flow of 1,206 gpd from 22762 PCH (Tidepool). The final Cityapproved design capacity (1,808 gpd) provides a margin of safety of over 600 gpd.

The wastewater flow and strength calculations in the approved, installed AOWTS consider the following uses:
§ Bed and breakfast inn room;
§ Cooking for bed and breakfast inn guests;
§ Pool use;
§ Gym use; and
§ Motel operations (employees, staff).

Following installation, the AOWTS design engineer, maintenance contractor, and licensed installation contractor certified that the AOWTS was installed in conformance with the City-approved design and functioning per the design intent.

In connection with the proposed bed and breakfast inn, there are no proposed uses at the property beyond those contemplated in the City-approved design. 162
ATTACHMENT 7
3) Whether the proposed change in occupancy results in a change in Water District approval
Following the November 2023 Planning Commission meeting, City staff contacted the Los Angeles County Waterworks District (LACWD) No. 29 and confirmed that the proposed application does not require its approval. The proposed bed and breakfast inn would not require larger water meters or greater fire protection capability than the existing buildings. No expansions to existing structures are proposed.

Additionally, both properties previously received Will Serve letters from LACWD No. 29 as part of their prior CDP approvals. Related to the Will Serve for 22752 PCH (Ryokan), the property owner paid $220,845 for the “[f]inancial share of the cost for the design and construction of future Sweetwater water storage reservoir and appurtenances.” Related to the pool installation at 22762 PCH (Tidepool), the property owner invested in the installation of a pool draft hydrant to support firefighting efforts.
4) History of the Ryokan Motel ABC License
On June 23, 2016, ABC granted two licenses to 22752 PCH: Type 66 (Controlled Access Cabinet Permit) and Type 70 (On-Sale General Restrictive Service). The Type 66 license allows for minibar use within the 16 guest rooms and the Type 70 license allows for the sale or furnishing of alcohol for consumption on the premises.

The Type 70 license is normally issued to suite-type accommodations which provide guests complimentary happy hours and allow guests to consume alcohol obtained from the minibar on the premises. 22762 PCH does not have any active ABC licenses. According to the ABC provisions, some applications require that a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) is established. Based on an ABC determination, if the premise is located in a high crime area based on local crime statistics and/or if the number of similar license types exceeds the limit set forth by State law (over-concentration), then a PCN is required. After the review of the application, ABC would notify the applicant if a PCN is required based on these criteria. Staff did not find any record that the City issued a PCN for this property.

While a bar is a conditionally permitted use, minibars are not listed in the permitted use table. In any event, the subject application includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the consideration of the bed and breakfast inn and sales of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption, as well as authorizing the Community Development Director to submit a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcohol.
163
ATTACHMENT 7
5) History of the Community Commercial (CC) zoning designation The Planning Commission requested City staff to research the history of why the property at 22752 PCH (Ryokan) was zoned CC instead of Commercial Visitor Serving 1 (CV-1) or CV-2 for consistency with the motel use that existing at the time. City staff could not find any information regarding the specific lot and it is unclear whether City Council intentionally decided to zone the property CC (which would have eventually required the motel use to be removed) or if it was simply an oversight.

Immediately after the General Plan was adopted in 1995, there were at least six amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map. Some of the amendments included multiple properties. The property at 22762 PCH (Tidepool) also contains a discrepancy between the General Plan land use designation reflecting Commercial Visitor Serving (CV) and the zoning map which depicts a CC zoning designation, even though the two maps were adopted within a year from each other. Based on all the changes that follow the General Plan and the maps’ internal inconsistencies, staff concluded that the CC zoning was an oversight for both 22752 PCH (Ryokan) and 22762 PCH (Tidepool).
6) Whether the swimming pool at 22762 PCH (Tidepool) is a permitted use The Planning Commission approved CDP No. 13-066 with the condition of approval, as follows:

3. Use of the pool is restricted to the occupants of the existing office building.

Use of the pool by any other person or for any other purpose is thus strictly prohibited unless or until any necessary approvals are obtained from the City that would allow use of the pool by individuals other than the occupants of the office building.

The condition authorized the construction of the swimming pool and its use by the onsite commercial occupants. The swimming pool was not conditioned to only be available to the general public. In fact, it restricts the public from using it. The code is not clear on whether pools can be permitted on commercial zoned properties.

The issue has been deliberated in past Planning Commission hearings on other projects and swimming pools have been approved by the Planning Commission for the Malibu Inn Motel and Sea View Hotel. While the Sea View Hotel included an Overlay District that granted more flexibility on the types of uses it can authorize, swimming pools were not addressed in the permitted table for Sea View Hotel and therefore, the same land use provisions would apply to the Sea View Hotel as any other commercial zone property.
164
ATTACHMENT 7
The Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) does not mention whether pools are permitted, conditionally permitted or accessory to any primary use other than for residences.

The LIP is similar but identifies pools for recreational facilities as a conditionally permitted use. The applicant is not proposing to construct or operate a recreation facility per the LIP as it has requested a CUP to operate a bed and breakfast inn, which is a separate use type in the LIP. As described and conditioned, the existing pool will be offered as an amenity for guests of the bed and breakfast inn exclusively. Both the MMC and LIP permit health clubs and conditionally permit motels, which are known to include swimming pools. As a potential incidental use to a commercial development, it may not have been necessary to list it as its own separate land use.

Staff sought direction from the Planning Commission as part of its December 18, 2023 meeting if pools are permitted, conditionally permitted or not a permitted use.

The Planning Commission accepted the pool use but amended the resolution recommending the City Council add the following conditions as part of any approval. These conditions are included in the City Council resolution. § Swimming pool shall only be used by guests and no use of any kind shall be allowed later than 10:00 p.m. The condition further requires that all pool lights shall be turned off no later than 10:00 p.m.
§ Amend Condition No. 3 of CDP No. 13-066 as follows:

3. Use of the existing pool is restricted to the occupants guests of the existing office building proposed bed and breakfast inn. Use of the pool by any other person or for any other purpose is thus strictly prohibited unless or until any necessary approvals are obtained from the City that would allow use of the pool by individuals other than the occupants of the office building not authorized under this approval.
7) Whether the hotel use is more appropriate than a bed and breakfast inn Pursuant to the MMC and LIP, the definitions for “bed and breakfast inn”, “motel” and “hotel” are provided in bullet points below. The proposed use includes transient lodging on four separate buildings, as well as a gym, swimming pool, commercial kitchen to provide meals to the guests only and minibars. All of the rooms have separate entrances leading directly from the outside of the building to the parking lot. None of the definitions mention gyms, swimming pools or minibars. The proposed use also does not include restaurants and meeting rooms that would be open to the general public. The definition for hotel states it provides “additional services”. If determined that the proposed gym, swimming pool and minibar qualify as additional services stipulated in the hotel definition then it may qualify as a hotel. 165
ATTACHMENT 7
However, these amenities may also be construed as services that can be customary to a bed and breakfast inn.
§ “Bed and breakfast inn” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public and providing kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests of the facility only and not otherwise open to the public.
§ “Motel” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public in a group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking space conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land, does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms, and not otherwise open to the public. § “Hotel” means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and providing additional services, such as restaurants and meeting rooms.

The parking requirement for hotels is much more stringent compared to motels.

This is due to the presumption that hotels, which would have amenities open to the public, would generate additional parking demand due to these “additional services”. It would seem that a gym, swimming pool and minibar would not generate the demand for additional parking spaces. It should also be stated that the existing use and site conditions are considered as legal, non-conforming. In the past, when a restaurant occupies a legal, non-conforming site due to parking, a CUP is processed for the use but a variance has not been traditionally required to bring the site into conformance, except in cases where a change is requested that generates additional parking spaces. The proposed changes do not result in an increase in parking demand compared to the previously permitted uses.

The Planning Commission accepted the bed and breakfast inn use as part of its recommendation for approval to the City Council. The proposed bed and breakfast inn will only provide services to guests of the bed and breakfast inn. It will not contain any meeting rooms. It will not host special events for any non-bed and breakfast inn guests. Upon approval of the proposed bed and breakfast inn, the existing Tidepool Health Club would cease operation, and only registered guests will have access to the existing fitness room and pool.

The proposed bed and breakfast inn will not operate a restaurant or bar. Consistent with the MMC and LCP, it will have dedicated kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests only. Meals will generally be provided in the form of room service at breakfast and lunch. The proposed offerings can be differentiated from 166
ATTACHMENT 7
hotels the City has previously approved. For example, the City Council approved the Sea View Hotel project (22729 and 22741 PCH) as a hotel, which included a restaurant and bar that will be open and available to non-guests of the hotel.

Similarly, the Malibu Beach Inn, which is an approved hotel, has a restaurant and bar open to non-hotel guests. Regarding alcohol service, the existing Ryokan motel currently holds a Type 66 (Controlled Access Cabinet Permit) and Type 70 (On-Sale General Restrictive Service) license issued by ABC. As the bed and breakfast inn would operate as a conjunctive use on both parcels, the applicant has applied to ABC to amend their Type 66 and 70 licenses to extend the allowances onto 22762 PCH. Again, this can be differentiated with the offerings proposed at the Sea View Hotel and those offered at the Malibu Beach Inn. 167

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-46

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF INITIAL STUDY NO. 17-002 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 19-002

PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVAL OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23-046 FOR THE CHANGE IN USE FROM

MOTEL AND GYM TO BED AND BREAKFAST INN, CONVERSION OF

OFFICE SPACE IN THE MALIBU TIDEPOOL HEALTH CLUB BUILDING

INTO A NEW GUEST SUITE AND AUTHORIZATION THE PLANNING

DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL; INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT NO. 16-001, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 16-001, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 15-001 TO

REZONE AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM

COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL VISITOR SERVING-ONE
FOR THE EXISTING NOBU RYOKAN MOTEL LOT (APN 4452-004-03 5)

AND REZONE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL

VISITOR SERVING-ONE FOR THE EXISTING MALIBU TIDEPOOL
HEALTH CLUB LOT (APN 4452-004-034), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-007 TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NON

CONFORMING MOTEL (NOBU RYOKAN MOTEL) AND ADJACENT

PRIVATE HEALTH CLUB (MALIBU TIDEPOOL HEALTH CLUB) INTO A

CONJUNCTIVE BED AND BREAKFAST INN AND THE SALE OF
ALCOHOL FOR ONSITE CONSUMPTION, AND LOT TIE NO. 21-001 TO

HOLD THE TWO LOTS AS ONE FOR THE CONJUNCTIVE USE OF THE

PROPERTIES AS A BED AND BREAKFAST INN, LOCATED IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 22752 AND 22762

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (NORTH BROADWAY VENTURES LLC AND

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

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On November 2, 2015, an application for Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 15- 001, Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 16-00 1 and General Plan Map Amendment (GPMA) No. 16-001 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Patrick Perry and Allen Matkins, on behalf of North Broadway Ventures and LLC and Wavebreak, LLC. The application was routed to the City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LACSD) for review. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-046 was later added to the project for the change in use from motel and gym to bed and breakfast inn.

B. On December 17, 2016, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 16-007 was added to the project.
168
ATTACHMENT 8
Resolution No 23-46

Page 2 of 15 ends

C. On March 10, 2021, Lot Tie (LT) No. 21-001 was added to the project.

D. On December 2, 2021, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Negative Declaration was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. The 30-day public review period began on December 2, 2021 and ended on January 3, 2022. The State Clearinghouse public review period for agencies began on December 8, 2021 and ended on January 6, 2022 (SCH# 2021120124). Staff did not receive public comments on the project.

E. On January 26, 2022, the proposed project was presented to the Environmental Review Board (ERB). The ERB did not have any recommendations regarding the proposed project.

F. On March 9, 2022, the CDP application was deemed complete for processing.

G. On July 26, 2023, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site condition and surrounding area.

H. On October 4, 2023, the applicant posted a Notice of Application for CDP on both parcels.

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

J. On November 6, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the subject application and continued the item to the December 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting to address additional comments.

K. On December 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Department prepared an initial study (Initial Study [IS] No. 17-002) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The initial study analyzed the proposed project and determined that it will not have a significant impact on the environment; subsequently, Negative Declaration (ND) No. 19-002 was prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.

On December 2, 2021, the City made IS No. 17-002 and ND No. 19-002 available to the public for the required 30-day circulation period, which concluded on January 3, 2022. The State Clearinghouse closed its review period on January 6, 2022.

The Planning Commission has considered IS No. 17-002 and ND No. 19-002. IS No. 17-002 and ND No. 19-002 reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for this project. 169
Resolution No 23-46

Page 3 ends

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, nor does it have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

The Planning Commission further finds that less than significant impacts on the environment are expected from the project. Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on November 6, 2023, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts and approves the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 23-046 for the change in use from motel and gym to bed and breakfast inn, interior remodel of the Malibu Tidepool Health Club building to convert interior space into a new guest suite and reconfigure the existing gym and kitchen and authorization the Planning Director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol; including GPMA No. 16-001, LCPA No. 16-001, ZMA No. 15-001 to rezone and change the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to Commercial Visitor Serving-One (CV-1) for the existing Nobu Ryokan Motel lot (APN 4452-004-035) and rezone from CC to CV-l for the existing Malibu Tidepool Health Club lot (APN 4452-004-034), CUP No. 16-007 to permit the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming motel (Nobu Ryokan Motel) and adjacent private health club (Malibu Tidepool Health Club) into a conjunctive bed and breakfast inn and the sale of alcohol for onsite consumption, and LT No. 2 1-001 to hold the two lots as one for the conjunctive use of the properties as a bed and breakfast inn, located in the CC zoning district at 22752 and 22762 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

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

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

1. The proposed bed and breakfast inn use is conditionally permitted in the CV- 1 zoning district. With the approval and adoption of the proposed changes to the zoning and land use designation, the proposed use is one that is conditionally permitted within the proposed CV- 1 zone and complies with the intent ofthe zoning provisions set forth in the MMC and the LCP. The project will conform to the MMC upon approval by the City Council and will conform with the LCP upon CCC certification of the LCPA.

2. The project is located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located along a public road and immediately east of an existing public vertical access way.

According to the LCP Park Land Maps, an existing lateral access easement has been recorded for the subject property and the neighboring contiguous properties to the east (22716, 22706, and 170
Resolution No 23-46

Page 4 of 15 ends

22664). The property owner has already offered to dedicate lateral easements from the most seaward building projection to the ambulatory mean high tide line. Therefore, the project is in conformity to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

3. An IS-ND was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. CEQA guidelines require that a range of reasonable alternatives to the project be described, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives ofthe Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any ofthe significant effects ofthe project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Based on LCP conformance review, the project as proposed will not result in any significant adverse impacts.

4. The project, IS No. 17-002 and ND-19-002 were reviewed by the ERB and no recommendations were provided.

C. Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007 for the Operation of a Bed and Breakfast Inn and Associated Uses and Alcohol Sales (MMC Chapter 17.66)

1. The proposed bed and breakfast inn project is a conditionally permitted use in the CV land use designation and CV-1 zoning district. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.24.030(A), onsite alcohol sales/consumption is a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 zoning district. With the approval and adoption of the proposed General Plan land use amendment from CC to CV and the zone change from CC to CV- 1, the proposed use is one that is conditionally permitted within the subject zone and complies with the intent ofthe Zoning provisions of the MMC and the LCP. The proposed project will conform to the MMC upon approval by the City Council and will conform with the LCP upon CCC certification of the LCPA.

2. The project is located within the commercial corridor of the city and the surrounding development is comprised ofrestaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that ofthe surrounding development. The project as designed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse visual impacts and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district.

3. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed bed and breakfast inn and for providing alcohol service. The existing commercial development can accommodate the proposed visitor-serving commercial through the conversion of the existing motel use at 22752 PCH (Ryokan Motel) and the expansion into the private health club at the adjacent 22762 PCH (Tide Pool) to be operated conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn. The proposed project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. The proposed bed and breakfast inn project is suitable for providing alcohol services.

4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The project is located within the commercial corridor ofthe City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development. Providing alcohol 171
Resolution No 23-46

Page 5 of 15 ends

service in association with a bed and breakfast inn is a compatible land use. The proposed bed and breakfast inn project is suitable for the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

5. The proposed bed and breakfast inn is a conditionally permitted use in the CV land use designation and CV-1 zoning district. With the approval and adoption ofthe proposed changes to the zoning and land use designation, the proposed use is one that is conditionally permitted within the proposed CV-1 zone and complies with the intent of the zoning provision of the MMC.

The proposed project is located within the commercial corridor and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. Providing alcohol service is compatible with existing and future land uses. The proposed bed and breakfast inn is suitable for the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

The proposed project is also located within the commercial corridor ofthe City and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development. The restaurants in the surrounding zoning district also provide alcohol service. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development.

6. There would be adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.

Adequate public services and utilities are available to serve the project. Utilities are available to serve the proposed project. Existing utilities already serve the existing motel and private health club on the project site. On December 14, 2017, the City Environmental Health Administrator reviewed the project and found it to meet the minimum requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code, MMC and LCP. The subject system will meet all applicable requirements, and operating permits will be required. The proposed project does not affect solar access or adversely impact existing public and private views. The project can be accommodated by converting the use of the existing commercial development on the property with limited physical modifications. The proposed bed and breakfast inn is located within a commercial corridor and the surrounding development is comprised of restaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development.

7. Adequate public services are available to serve the project. Access to the proposed project is from PCH, an existing public highway. The existing vehicle access from two existing driveways on PCH will remain as is. A driveway on the east is used to access 15 parking spaces on an at grade parking area at 22752 PCH (Ryokan Motel lot). A driveway on the west is used to access 10 parking spaces on an at grade parking area at 22762 PCH (Tide Pool lot).

8. The General Plan land use of the property is currently CV for the Tide Pool parcel and CC for the existing motel site. The project includes an amendment to change the land use designation of the motel site to CV, consistent with the Tide Pool parcel. The request for a conditionally permitted bed and breakfast inn with the sale of alcohol for onsite consumption on the subject property is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and general land uses of the Malibu General Plan and with the CV land use designation. The proposed visitor-serving bed and breakfast inn supports the General Plan’s objective to permit the development of commercial visitor-serving facilities at suitable locations [LU Goal 3: LU Objective 3.2]. The bed and breakfast inn, including the sale of alcohol for onsite-consumption, would contribute to the visitor-serving areas for use by tourists. The property will not be physically altered by the conditionally permitted bed and breakfast inn use. Therefore, the proposed bed and breakfast inn, including the sale of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption use is in alignment with the General Plan’s objective 172
Resolution No 23-46

Page 6 of 15 ends

for visitor-serving facilities in suitable locations and to limit development impacts on the City’s natural and environmental resources.

9. Bed and breakfast inns and alcohol service are conditionally permitted uses in the CV- 1 zoning district. As conditioned, the proposed use 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 such as the ABC and the LACSD.

10. Bed and breakfast inns and alcohol service are conditionally permitted uses in the CV-1 zoning district. 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 such as the ABC and the LACSD. As conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.

11. The proposed project is not located in an area determined by the City to be at risk from earth movement, flooding or liquefaction. Therefore, the proposed project is not at risk from earth movement, flooding, liquefaction, or other potential hazards.

SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16-001 Findings LCP Amendment (LCPA No. 16-00 1) to amend Appendix 2 (Maps).

Based on the evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:

1. The proposed bed and breakfast inn use is conditionally permitted in the CV-1 zoning district. With the approval and adoption of the proposed changes to the zoning and land use designation, the proposed bed and breakfast use is one that is conditionally permitted within the proposed CV-1 zone and complies with the intent of the zoning provisions of the LCP.

Additionally, the project will conform to the LCP upon CCC certification of the LCPA.

Chapter 3 ofthe Coastal Act states that any new development must not impede or adversely impact public access to the beach, must protect marine resources and scenic views, and must not significantly disrupt environmentally sensitive habitat areas. LUP Chapter 2 incorporates the public access policies set forth in the Coastal Act, including Public Resources Code Section 30210.

The proposed LCPA, does not impede public access to the beach, impact coastal resources, impact scenic views, or disrupt environmentally sensitive habitat areas as the proposed project does not involve any new construction or improvements outside of the existing building footprint and is not designated as ESHA. Therefore, the overall text amendment is consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The proposed amendment also furthers the following relevant LUP policies and sections:

The relevant Coastal Act Policies regarding New Development are provided in LUP Chapter 5. The following LUP policies and sections apply and provide in pertinent part as follows:
173
Resolution No 23-46

Page 7 of 15 ends

a. A.2. Visitor serving commercial uses shall be allowed in all commercial zones in the City and shall be given priority over other non-coastal dependent development. b. 5.11 Recreational development and commercial visitor-serving facilities shall have priority over non-coastal dependent uses. All uses shall be consistent with protection of public access and ESHA.

The relevant Coastal Act Policies regarding Public Access and Recreation, and visitor serving recreational facilities and commercial uses such as hotels and motels are provided in LUP Chapter 2. The following LUP policies and sections apply and provide as follows:
a. 30222 The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. b. 2.33 Priority shall be given to the development of visitor-serving and commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation.

On land designated for visitor-serving commercial and/or recreational facilities, priority shall be given to such use over private residential or general commercial development. New visitor-serving uses shall not displace existing low-cost visitorserving uses unless an equivalent replacement is provided. c. 2.37 Priority shall be given to the development of visitor-serving commercial and/or recreational uses that complement public recreation areas or supply recreational opportunities not currently available in public parks or beaches. Visitor-serving commercial and/or recreational uses may be located near public park and recreation areas only ifthe scale and intensity of the visitor-serving commercial recreational uses is compatible with the character of the nearby parkland and all applicable provisions of the LCP.

SECTION 5. General Plan Map Amendment No. 16-001 Findings GPMA No. 16-00 1 will change the land use designation of the motel site from CC to CV-1.

Based on the evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:

1. The GPMA will make the land use designation for the project site consistent with the LCP and the zoning designation for the property.

2. The General Plan land use designations in the area surrounding the project site are primarily commercial, with some residential. The Ryokan Motel land use designation is CC, which is intended to provide resident serving needs on land that is suitable for concentrated commercial activity but does not allow flr the proposed bed and breakfast inn. The Tide Pool land use designation is CV, which i intended general commercial uses as well as for hotels, motels and bed and breakfast inns. Therefore, the GPMA is proposed to change the land use designation of the Ryokan Motel to CV, a land use designation that allows for bed and breakfast inns.

3. The project is located within the commercial corridor of the City and the surrounding development is comprised ofrestaurants, motels, and other commercial development, as well as multi-family residential development. The intensity and density of the proposed use is commensurate with that of the surrounding development.
174
Resolution No 23-46

Page 8 of 15 ends

4. The GPMA is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and program specified in the General Plan.

LU OBJECTIVE 4.4 of the General Plan provides for successful businesses appropriate for to Malibu. To fulfil this LU Policy 4.4.3 provides: “The City shall regulate design of new bed and breakfast inns to foster “country-inn type” establishments and regulate the size and design of other hotel development to ensure development compatible with a rural residential community and discourage convention hotel developments by limiting on the same site ancillary uses such as banquet and meeting rooms and limiting restaurants to a capacity necessary to serve guests of the hotel only.”

5. The existing commercial development can accommodate the proposed visitorserving commercial use through the conversion of the existing motel use at 22752 PCH (Ryokan Motel) and the expansion into the private health club at the adjacent 22762 PCH (Tide Pool) to be operated conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood.

SECTION 6. Zoning Map Amendment No. 15-001 Findings
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment No. 15-001 will change the zoning from CC to CV- 1.

Based on the evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:

1. The zoning map amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies and general land uses in the General Plan, as amended by the LCP amendment.

2. The zoning map amendment will allow the MMC to be amended and be consistent with the amended LCP zoning map, and is only a corollary of that action.

3. The zoning map amendment is necessary for the proposed LCP amendment and will only be approved if the LCP amendment is approved, and on the condition that the zoning map amendment only takes effect ifthe LCP amendment is certified by the CCC.

SECTION 7. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity.

According to the State Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control, the project site is located within a census tract that has an over-concentration of licenses; therefore, a Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity is required. Based on CUP findings in Section 3 of this resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare and is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council authorizes the Planning Director to prepare and submit a Letter ofPublic Convenience or Necessity for the proposed use to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department.

SECTION 8. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council the adoption of IS 17-002 and ND No. 19- 175
Resolution No 23-46

Page 9 ends

002 and approval of CDP No. 23-046, CUP No. 16-007, GPMA No. 16-001, ZMA No. 15-001, and LCPA No. 16-007, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 9. Conditions of Approval.

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 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 project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. The conversion of a legal nonconforming motel (Nobu Ryokan Motel) and adjacent private health club (Tidepool Health Club) to be operated conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn with a total of 17 guestrooms with kitchen facilities, a 300 square foot gym; and a 600 square foot swimming pool;
b. The sale of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption by guests only; and c. Discretionary Request:
i. GPMA No. 16-001 to change the land use designation for the Ryokan Motel lot from CC to Cv;
ii. ZMA No. 15-001 to change to zoning for both lots from CC to CV-1; iii. LCPA No. 16-007 to change the land use designation for both lots from CC to CV-1; and
iv. CUP No. 16-007 for the operation of a bed and breakfast inn use in the commercial visitor serving zoning district and alcohol service.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed use must be operated 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 August 24, 2023. 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.
176
Resolution No 23-46

Page 10 of 15 ends

6. 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. In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, and LACSD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals have been exhausted.

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. Condition No. 3 of CDP No. 13-066 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Use of the existing pool is restricted to guests of the proposed bed and breakfast inn. Use of the pooi by any other person or for any other purpose is not authorized under this approval.”
Site-Specific Conditions

13. No off-site sale of alcohol shall be permitted. Alcohol shall only be served for room service and within the deck for bed and breakfast inn guests.

14. This CUP permits the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The property owner / bed and breakfast inn operator shall obtain all necessary approvals from ABC. Once obtained, the applicant is required to provide the Planning Department a copy ofthe issued ABC license.

15. A copy of the current ABC license, shall be kept on the premises of the establishment and be presented to City staff, including the City’s Planning Director and Code Enforcement staff, law enforcement officers or their duly authorized representatives, upon request. 177
Resolution No 23-46

Page 11 of 15 ends

16. At all times during the conduct of the permitted use, the permittee shall maintain and keep in effect valid licensing approval from ABC. Should such licensing be denied, expire or lapse at any time in the future, the approval ofalcohol sale pursuant to this permit is subject to modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section

17.66.100(C).

17. The approved hours of operation for the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages are limited to 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

18. No live entertainment is permitted on the property except in compliance with an approved temporary use permit provided it can be demonstrated that the noise generated from the event would be in compliance with Condition No. 20 and off-street parking spaces can be secured to accommodate the number ofpeople expected in the event. Amplified sound may be permitted provide it is consistent with Condition Nos. 20 and 45.

19. The property owner / operator shall adhere to a “good neighbor” policy, meaning that the operator and employees must respect the rights of neighboring properties and, to the best of their ability, shall ensure their patrons’ compliance with the City’s noise and smoking regulations and all conditions of approval for the subject use relating to parking, smoking, litter, noise, loitering, etc.

20. Noise emanating from the premises shall not be plainly audible at a distance of five feet of any residential unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.rn., as required by MMC Section 8.24.050(L).

21. The onsite kitchen may only serve food and beverages to bed and breakfast inn guests.

22. The bed and breakfast inn operator must adhere to all laws related to the sale of alcohol.

Violations of such laws may be cause for modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section 17.66.100(C).

23. No other new signage is permitted under this application; a sign permit shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation of any new sign.

24. The landscaping plan must be revised to include a detail depicting a barrier encircling root balls to be used for all the California Sycamore trees in order to minimize potential root damage to the sidewalk and parking lot. The planting ofthe California Sycamore trees must be in compliance with this detail.

25. The swimming pool shall only be used by guests ofthe facility and no use of any kind shall be allowed later than 10:00 p.m. All pooi lights must be turned off for the night no later than 10:00p.m.

26. Special events involving non-guests shall require a temporary use permit.

27. Prior to the effective date of the coastal development permit, the property owner must pay the lower cost overnight accommodations in lieu fee in compliance with LIP Section 12.10 for the proposed increase of one room.
178
Resolution No 23-46

Page 12 of 15 ends

Conditional Use Permit

28. This conditional use permit may be reviewed by the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) and/or Planning Commission on an as-needed basis at the discretion of the Planning Director (predecessor and/or designee) or Planning Commission. Should it be determined that a review is required, the applicant shall pay the Planning Department staff site inspection fee in effect at the time of request for a site inspection. A staff planner will conduct a site visit to verify compliance with the provisions set forth in this resolution. If necessary, the Planning Director will determine whether the conditional use permit may be brought back to the Planning Commission for additional conditions to mitigate and/or prevent nuisances that were identified during the site inspection or made aware of by members of the public. Possible mitigation measures can include:
a. Modifying the hours of operation;
b. Incorporate noise mitigating measures / devices;
c. Traffic safety measures;
d. Land use intensification or reconfiguration of shared parking that would result in a parking demand greater than approved under this application; or e. Other measures deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.

29. The property owner and operator shall not use the parking lot for any use other than the uses and activities explicitly permitted for the subject parcel or as permitted by a temporary use permit or filming permit. In the event the required parking is not provided onsite, the property owner shall provide a parking plan to the satisfaction ofthe Planning Director that all offsite parking has been secured. All parking for staff shall be provided onsite no matter what is occurring on the property.

30. The property owner and operator must secure an off-site parking area to accommodate vehicles for all events that overlap with other uses that will generate a parking demand in excess ofthe proposed parking spaces. A shuttle service must be provided between the offsite parking area and the subject property.

31. The conditions under which this conditional use permit may be modified by the City without the consent of the property owner or operator if the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance.

32. A conditional use permit that is valid and in effect and was granted pursuant to the provisions of the MMC, shall run with the land and continue to be valid upon change of ownership of the land or any lawfully existing building or structure on the land.

33. This conditional use permit shall no longer be valid and in effect with the demolition of all buildings, including a major remodel constituting new development requiring a new CDP.

34. The conditional use permit may be revoked ifthe Planning Commission finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
a. The conditional use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner. b. The use for which the conditional use permit was granted has ceased or was suspended for at least six successive calendar months.
c. One or more of the conditions found within this resolution have not been substantially met.
179
Resolution No 23-46

Page 13 of 15 ends

35. The conditional use permit is subject to Planning Commission revocation should the use for which the conditional use permit was granted cease for six successive calendar months, except in the case of a natural disaster.

Trash Storage Areas

36. Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area.

37. Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.

Outdoor Material Storage

38. Materials with the potential to contaminate storm water must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet shed or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes or curbs.

39. The storage areas must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills.

40. The storage area must have a roof or awning to minimize collection of storm water within the secondary containment area.

Alcohol Services

41. This CUP permits the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with an approved ABC license. The property owner/tenant shall obtain all necessary approvals from ABC. Once obtained, the applicant is required to provide the Planning Department a copy ofthe issued ABC license.

42. A copy of the current ABC license shall be kept on the premises of the establishment and be presented to City staff, including the City’s Planning Director and Code enforcement staff, law enforcement officers or their duly authorized representatives, upon request.

43. At all times during the conduct of the permitted use, the permittee shall maintain and keep in effect valid licensing approval from ABC. Should such licensing be denied, expire, or lapse at any time in the future, the approval of alcohol sale pursuant to this permit is subject to modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section

17.66.100(C).

44. The property owner/operator shall adhere to a “good neighbor” policy, meaning that the operator and employees must respect the rights of neighboring properties, and to the best of their ability, shall ensure their patrons’ compliance with the City’s noise and smoking regulations and all conditions of approval for the subject use relating to parking, smoking. litter, noise, loitering, etc.

45. Noise emanating from the premises shall not be audible at a distance of five feet of any residential unit between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., as required by MMC Section 8.24.050(L).
180
Resolution No 23-46

Page 14 of 15 ends

46. Amplified sound outdoors is prohibited, except that ambient music is allowed in the swimming pooi and deck areas, as long as it is not audible within five feet of any neighboring building, and the applicant prepares a noise study.

47. The property owner/tenant shall comply with the requirements set forth in MMC Chapter

9.28 (Plastic Bag Ban). No retail establishment, restaurant, vendor, or nonprofit vendor shall provide plastic bags or compostable bags to customers. This requirement applies to plastic or compostable bags provided at the point of sale for the purpose of carrying away goods.

48. No restaurant, food packager, retail food vendor, or nonprofit food provider shall provide prepared food to its customers in any food packaging that utilizes expanded polystyrene. “Expanded polystyrene” means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes incorrectly called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Expanded polystyrene is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays, and egg cartons.

49. The property owner / tenant shall comply with the requirements set forth in MMC Chapter

9.24 (Ban on Plastic Food Packaging and Other Plasticware). No retail establishment, restaurant, vendor or nonprofit shall provide plastic beverage straws, plastic stirrers, or plastic cutlery to customers.

50. Staff shall inspect the property as needed afier approval of the CUP to verify compliance with the conditions of approval.

51. The Planning Department shall conduct a review of bed and breakfast inn operations and compliance with conditions of approval. The report shall be presented to the Planning Commission five years afier CUP approval.

Sheriffs Department

52. The tenant must adhere to all laws related to the sale of alcohol. Violations of such laws may be cause for modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section 17.66.100(C).

Deed Restrictions

53. The property owner(s) are required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning approval. 181
Resolution No 23-46

Page 15 of 15 ends

Lot Tie Agreement

54. The property owner(s) are required to execute and record a covenant and agreement to hold the subject properties identified as 22752 and 22762 PCH as one parcel to guarantee that no portion of the bed and breakfast inn or the private health club shall be sold separately for the life of the use. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Department staff prior to final Planning approval and effective date of the use.

Fixed Conditions

55. This conditional use permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

56. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ 8~ day of December 2023.

KRAIG HILL, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
~_.

REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-46 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the ~ 8~ day of December 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: 3 Commissioners: Hill, Mazza, Peak
NOES: 2 Commissioners: Leonard, Smith
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
182
Ci o 1~7alibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 317-1950 www.malibucity.org

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator DATE: ~6/3_!~~ FROM: City of Malibu Planning Department
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 17-007
JOB ADDRESS: 22752 PACIFIC COAST HWY, Common Area
APPLICANT /CONTACT: Patrick A. Perry, Allen Matkins
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 515 S. Figueroa
Los Angeles, CA 90071
APPLICANT PHONE #: (213) 955-5504
APPLICANT FAX #: (2131620-8816
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUP for proposed motel use
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 Plumbing Code (MPC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheets) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.

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

OIM'S Plot Plan: [vj~ NOT REQUIRED
❑ REQUIRED (attached hereto) ❑ REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
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 ATTACHMENT 9
183
~~~ £ F ~~ Ci tY of Malibu
,~ ~~ Environmental Health .Environmental Sustainability Department ~`~,,.,~ ~~~~~..w.i' 23825 Stuart Ranch Road ~ Malibu, California • 90265-4861 ,~ ii Phone (310) 456-2489 •Fax (310) 317-1950 • www.malibucity.oi•g qC,/~~.~~~~. t~, ~ `~,1

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant : Patrick Perry
(name and email pperryna ~llenmatkins.Com
address)
Project Address: 22752 Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CUP 17-007
Project Description: CUP for proposed motel use
Date of Review: December 14, 2017 ~
Reviewer: _ Melinda Talent Signature. _ _ __~f~l,_
Contact Information: Phone: 310-456-2489 ext. 364 Email: mta ent@malibucit .or

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Architectural Plans plan by Studio PCH submitted to Planning on June 7 2017 Miscellaneous:
.Site
Operating Permit issued 6-21-17. Letter from Patrick Perry dated 8-14-17. City of Malibu Planning Department Uniform Application, Attachment A, Attachment A-1, _Attachment A-2 revision submitted to Planning_on 12-5-17 Previous Reviews: 6-16-17, 8-28-17

REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: ~ CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Plumbing Code (MPC).

The listed conditions of Planning stage conformance review and plan check review comments shall be addressed prior to plan check approval. ❑ CONFORMANCE REVIEW INCOMPLETE for the City of Malibu LIP and MPC.

The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.

OWTS Plot Plan: ~ NOT REQUIRED
❑ REQUIRED (attached hereto) ❑ REQUIRED (not attached)
Environmental Health conformance review has been completed forthe development proposal described in the project description provided by the Planning Department and the project plans and reports submitted to this office. Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project consultants and, prior to final approval, provide a coordinated submittal addressing all conditions for final approval and plan check items.

The conditional conformance findings hereby transmitted complete the Planning stage Environmental Health review of the project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the OWTS Plot Plan and project 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.

Page 1 of 2 ends

(.~r~
T~.nv Health Review Lai\Projea Review\Pacific Coast H~ry~2D52 PCI-I (Ca4i ~1alibu ~1orel}\CUP 17-007~I71214_22752 184
ECH_OC 17-007_LIi ConCRev CRC doer Rec~'ded Paper
of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
Conditions of Planning Conformance Review
CUP 17-007
22752 Pacific Coast Hwy
December 14, 2017
No conditions are required by Environmental Health.
.~.

If you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department

Page 2 of 2 ends

"I'if=nv I-lealth Review Lod,APiuject ReviewAPacific Coast Hwy~27S2 PCI I (Cake Malibu Motel)ACUP 17-U07~I71214_22752 185
PCH_OC 17-007_I~li ConCRev_CRC.doc~ Recycled Paper
Ci o 1~7alibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 317-1950 www.malibucity.org

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

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
186
~~~ £ F ~~ Ci tY of Malibu
,~ ~~ Environmental Health .Environmental Sustainability Department ~`~,,.,~ ~~~~~..w.i' 23825 Stuart Ranch Road ~ Malibu, California • 90265-4861 ,~ ii Phone (310) 456-2489 •Fax (310) 317-1950 • www.malibucity.oi•g qC,/~~.~~~~. t~, ~ `~,1

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET

REVIEW FINDINGS
Planning Stage: ~ CONFORMANCE REVIEW COMPLETE for the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program/Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu Plumbing Code (MPC).

The listed Planning stage review comments shall be addressed prior to conformance review completion.

Page 1 of 2 ends

(.~r~
T~.nv Health Review Lai\Projea Review\Pacific Coast H~ry~2D52 PCI-I (Ca4i ~1alibu ~1orel}\CUP 17-007~I71214_22752 187
ECH_OC 17-007_LIi ConCRev CRC doer Rec~'ded Paper
of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
Conditions of Planning Conformance Review
CUP 17-007
22752 Pacific Coast Hwy
December 14, 2017
No conditions are required by Environmental Health.
.~.

If you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department

Page 2 of 2 ends

"I'if=nv I-lealth Review Lod,APiuject ReviewAPacific Coast Hwy~27S2 PCI I (Cake Malibu Motel)ACUP 17-U07~I71214_22752 188
PCH_OC 17-007_I~li ConCRev_CRC.doc~ Recycled Paper
189
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway
General Plan Land Use Map, Local Coastal
Program Land Use Map, Zoning Map
Amendments and Conditional use Permits
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Negative Declaration prepared by
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
November 2021
190
191
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway
General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map,
and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map
Amendments and Conditional Use Permits
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration prepared by
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
August 2021
192
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. 193
Table of Contents
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration i Table of Contents
Initial Study............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Project Title......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address......................................................................................... 1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1

4. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address................................................................................. 1

6. Existing Setting.................................................................................................................... 4

7. General Plan Designation and Zoning District .................................................................... 6

8. Malibu Local Coastal Program Zoning Designation ............................................................ 7

9. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 9

10. Required Project Approvals..............................................................................................15

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting..................................................................................15

12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................16 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................20 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................20 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................22 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................24 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................26 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................30 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................32 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................34 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................38 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................40 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................44 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................47 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................54 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................56 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................58 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................60 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................62 17 Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................................64 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................66 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................68 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................70 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................72 References............................................................................................................................................66 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................66 194
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits ii
Tables
Table 1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2 Amendment and Entitlement Application Numbers........................................................10 Table 3 Permitted Uses..................................................................................................................49 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4 Existing Zoning Districts ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Existing Local Coastal Program Designations...................................................................... 7 Figure 6 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations................................................................12 Figure 7 Proposed Zoning Districts.................................................................................................13 Figure 8 Proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Designations.................................................14 195
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 1 Initial Study

1. Project Title
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits.

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265-4861

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Adrian Fernandez, Assistant Planning Director
(310) 456-2489, extension 482
[email protected]

4. Project Location
As shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, the Project Site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Malibu (City) along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), approximately 0.4 miles east of Malibu Pier.

As shown in Figure 2, Project Vicinity, the Project Site is comprised of two immediately adjacent beachfront parcels situated on the south side of PCH, between PCH and the Pacific Ocean, located at 22762 (known as Tide Pool) and 22752 PCH (known as Ryokan Hotel) (Project Site), assessor parcel numbers (APN) 4452-004-34 and 4452-004-35, respectively,

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Applicant
Patrick Perry
Allens Matkins
515 S. Figueroa, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, Ca 90071
Owners
22752 PCH 22762 PCH
North Broadway Ventures, LLC Wavebreak, LLC
196
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 2 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, #320 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, #320 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Walnut Creek, California 94596 197
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 3 Figure 1 Regional Location
198
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 4 Figure 2 Project Vicinity

6. Existing Setting
The City is a rural beach community with a population of approximately 12,960 people. The City maintains primarily residential development, with clusters of small neighborhoods and single-family residences scattered in the hills to the north and in enclaves along the south side of PCH. The more intensive land uses, such as commercial neighborhood and visitor-serving businesses, and multifamily developments, are primarily located on or adjacent to PCH. Development in the City is subject to rural hazards, such as fire, landslides, tsunami, and sea level rise, and development is further constrained by the presence of environmentally sensitive resources.

PCH travels the length of the City along the coastline and serves as the City’s main thoroughfare to the west and east. It is the primary access into, and out of, the City for locals and visitors alike. PCH is also a designated scenic highway pursuant to Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and provides access to the City’s beaches and public open spaces.

Site Access
The Project Site is accessed from PCH, which borders the property on the north. A driveway on the east accesses 15 parking spaces on an at grade parking area at 22752 PCH. A driveway on the west accesses 10 parking spaces on an at grade parking area at 22762 PCH. There is no internal access between the two parking areas.

Existing Site Conditions
The Project Site is comprised of two commercially developed beachfront parcels. The existing development is located on the north side of the parcels, along PCH and above the beach. The south side of the parcels is undeveloped and comprised of sandy beach. Figure 2 provides an aerial image 199
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 5 of the site’s existing condition and Table 1, Characteristics of Existing Conditions, provides a summary of the approximate lot size, square footages of existing buildings and parking spaces available at the Project Site.
22762 PCH is approximately 0.30 acre and is developed with a 2,157 square foot, two-story building and attached 392 square foot one-story garage originally built in 1951, with an at grade parking lot containing 10 parking spaces. The property was previously occupied by the Tidepool Gallery, a former art house. The property was remodeled in 2015 pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No. 13-066, which included construction of a swimming pool, and is currently occupied by Malibu Tidepool Health Club.

The Tidepool Health Club amenities include a gym, swimming pool, and a kitchen to provide food/drink services to members. As discussed in detail in Sections 7 and 8 below, the health club use is a conforming use because it is a permitted use pursuant to the current land use designation and zoning.
22752 PCH is approximately 0.67 acre and is developed with 9,030 square feet of total floor area, comprised of a two-story building, and two one-story bungalows, originally built in 1950, with an at grade parking lot containing 15 parking spaces. The property has historically been used as a motel and was previously occupied by the Casa Malibu Inn providing 22 guest rooms. The property was remodeled in 2016 pursuant to Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 13-004, to maintain the motel use, and the guest rooms total was reduced to 16.

The property is currently occupied by Nobu Ryokan Motel (Ryokan Motel), providing 16 guest rooms. As discussed in detail in Sections 7 and 8 below, the existing development and motel use is legal nonconforming because it does not conform with the current land use designation and zoning, which does not allow for transient lodging accommodations (i.e., bed and breakfast inn, motel or hotel).

Table 1 Existing Conditions
Building Lot Size Building Height
Approximate Floor
Area/FAR Parking Spaces
22752 PCH (Ryokan) 0.67 acre (29,185
sq.ft.)
9,030 square
feet/0.31
15 Existing 2-Story Bldg.
(Bldg. 1)

23.5 feet
Existing 1-Story
Bungalows (Bldg. 2
and Bldg. 3)
13 feet, 11 inches
22762 PCH (Tidepool) 0.30 acre (12,632
sq.ft.)
2,157 square
feet/0.17
10 Existing 2-story Bldg. 21.5 feet 2,157
Existing 1-Story
Attached Garage
10 feet 392
Deck + Swimming
Pool (600 sq ft)
Ground level
200
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 6 7. General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The Project Site is designated “Community Commercial” (CC) in the Malibu General Plan. The CC land use designation is intended to provide for resident-serving needs on land that is suitable for concentrated commercial activity. The CC land use designation plans for centers that offer a greater depth and range of consumer goods than those found in neighborhood centers, which typically contain an anchor tenant such as a supermarket. Allowed uses typically include financial institutions, restaurants, and health care facilities.

The General Plan land use designations in the area surrounding the Project Site are primarily commercial, with some residential, as shown in Figure 3, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.

Consistent with the General Plan, the Malibu Municipal Code (MCC) Zoning Map designates the Project Site as CC, and also provides that the CC zoning district is intended to provide for the resident serving needs of the community on parcels of land more suitable for concentrated commercial activity. Permitted and/or conditionally permitted uses within the CC zoning district include health clubs and dance studios, medical clinics and offices, bakeries, beauty salons and bookstores, financial institutions, nursey schools and day care facilities, professional offices, public open space and recreation, small retail stores, and restaurants. The MMC defines a “health club” to include, but not be limited to “gymnasiums (except public), private clubs (athletic, health or recreational), with full-service facilities including, but not limited to, showers, lockers, pools and saunas.

The Zoning districts in the area surrounding the Project Site are primarily CC to the north and east and “Multi-Family Residential” (MF) to the west and east; there are areas of “Commercial Visitor Serving 1” (CV-1) to the west, northwest, east and northeast, and “Commercial Visitor Serving 2” (CV-2) to the west, as shown in Figure 4, Existing Zoning Districts.

Upon the City’s adoption of the General Plan and MMC and the designation of the property within the CC land use designation and zoning district, the pre-existing motel use at 22752 PCH became a legal non-conforming use. Transient lodging accommodations, i.e., motel, bed and breakfast inn and hotel uses, are not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use within the CC land use designation or zoning district, and are therefore not a permitted use. Recognizing that the City’s new land use regulations would result in the existing uses on some properties being rendered nonconforming, the MMC included an amortization provision (MMC Section 17.60.040). The amortization period for the property’s legal non-conforming status would have expired in 2013. In 2014, the City approved an extension of the amortization schedule (EAS No. 14-001) to allow the time to process an LCP amendment, a change of zoning designation, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a transient lodging accommodation use. In July 2019, the City granted an additional extension of the amortization period (EAS No. 19-001) to allow the time to process the LCP amendment, change of land use designation and zoning district from CC to CV and CV-2, respectively, obtain the other necessary entitlements to continue operating transient lodging accommodations, and to process an application for a CUP to establish the transient lodging accommodation use in the CV-2 zone. EAS No. 19-001 extended the amortization period to the shorter of five years or the time required to process the LCP amendment and zone change. 201
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 7

8. Malibu Local Coastal Program Zoning Designation
The Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP), which consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP), designates the Project Site as CC-2. Similar to the General Plan and MMC, the LCP provides that: the CC district is intended to provide for resident serving needs of the community, but on parcels of land more suitable for concentrated commercial activity. Transient lodging accommodations, i.e., motels, bed and breakfast inns and hotel uses, is not allowed.

The LCP Land Use designations surrounding the project site are primarily commercial with CC areas to the north and east, MF to the west and east, CV-1 west and northwest, and east and northeast, and CV-2 to the west, as shown in Figure 5, Existing Local Coastal Program Designations.

Figure 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
202
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 8 Figure 4 Existing MMC Zoning Districts
203
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 9 Figure 5 Existing Local Coastal Program Land Use Designation and Zoning District

9. Description of Project
The Proposed Project involves permitting the existing motel use at 22752 PCH (Ryokan Motel) and tying the development to operate in conjunction with the existing building at 22762 PCH (Malibu Tidepool Health Club), resulting in a combined facility, operated conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn, that encompasses the two parcels, but functions as one project. The resulting combined development and uses would include transient lodging accommodations (17 guestrooms), with kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to the guests of the facility only, and a small gym (approximately 300 sf) and swimming pool (600 sf) for guests of the facility only. Upon approval of the Proposed Project, the existing health club will cease operating and the facility will not offer any services to non-facility guests.

There are no proposed structural alterations or additions to either of the existing buildings’ floor area. The Project Site currently has 25 total parking spaces, which is sufficient to provide one parking space per guestroom (17) and one parking space for the maximum per shift number of employees (8).

The proposed use meets the definition of a Bed and Breakfast Inn (Inn) as defined in the LCP and MMC. However, an Inn, like a motel, is not an allowed use in the CC zoning district, the current zoning for the Project Site. Transient lodging accommodations are not allowed in the CC zoning district.

A motel and Inn are an allowed type of use in the Commercial Visitor Serving (CV) land use designation, as provided for in the General Plan:
204
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 10 The CV designation provides for visitor serving uses which serve visitors and residents such as hotels and restaurants which respect the rural character and natural environmental setting. Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) shall range from a maximum of 0.15 to 0.25. CV designations are divided into two levels of density.

Hotels are only permitted in CV-2 designations, the highest density designation.

Visitor serving uses such as Motels and hotels shall be consistent with compatible accessory uses, shall protect the surrounding properties, shall ensure safe traffic circulation and shall promote economically viable visitor serving areas of the City.

The MMC and LCP also specifically provide that a motel and an Inn are allowed as a conditionally permitted use in the CV-1 and CV-2 zoning districts. Permitting the uses to operate requires the approval of a CUP.

In order for the Project Site to be permitted for the proposed Inn use, a General Plan Land Use Map amendment (GPMA), a Zoning Map amendment (ZMA), and a Local Coastal Program Land Use Map amendment (LCPA) must be approved to redesignate the Project Site’s land use designation and zoning district from CC to CV and CV-1 or CV-2, respectively.

The Proposed Project involves redesignating the Project Site’s land use designation and zoning district from CC to CV and CV-2, respectively. Concurrently, the Proposed Project seeks a CUP to permit the conjunctive operation of the two buildings on the Project Site as an Inn use in the CV-2 zone. Since the proposed use of the Project Site as an Inn encompasses two parcels, the Property Owners will be required to record a lot tie covenant to hold the two parcels as one as a condition of approval for the CUP. No new development or changes to the existing buildings or parking are proposed.

The Proposed Project includes the following amendments and entitlements to allow for the Proposed Project on the Project Site (Table 2). With the approval of these amendments and entitlements, the existing and proposed land use would conform to the MMC and LCP.  GPMAs to change from the “Community Commercial” (CC) land use designation to “Commercial Visitor Serving” (CV) land use designation (Figure 6, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations)
 ZMAs to change from the “Community Commercial” (CC) zoning district to the “Commercial Visitor Serving” (CV-2) zoning district (Figure 7, Proposed Zoning Districts)  LCPAs to change from the “Community Commercial” (CC) land use designation and zoning district to the “Commercial Visitor Serving” (CV-2) land use designation and zoning district (Figure 8, Proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Designation and Zoning District)  CUP to permit a bed and breakfast inn at the Project Site and the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption at the Project Site by guests of the Inn only (alcohol service).  Lot Tie (LT) to hold the two parcels as one for the conjunctive use of the properties as a bed and breakfast inn.

Table 2 Amendment and Entitlement Application Numbers
22762 PCH 22752 PCH Existing Designation
Proposed
Designation
GPMA GPA 16-001 GPA 16-002 CC CV
LCPA LCPA 16-001 LCPA 16-002 CC CV-2
205
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 11 ZMA ZMA 15-001 ZMA 15-002 CC CV-2
CUP (Alcohol Service,
and Bed and Breakfast
inn)
CUP 16-007 CUP 16-007
LT LT 21-001 LT 21-001
206
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 12 Figure 6 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 207
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 13 Figure 7 Proposed MMC Zoning Districts
208
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 14 Figure 8 Proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts 209
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 15

10. Required Project Approvals
The Proposed Project requires the following City of Malibu approvals:
 General Plan Map Amendment
 Local Coastal Program Amendment
 Zoning Map Amendment
 Conditional Use Permit
 Lot Tie
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) must also approve the Local Coastal Program Amendment subsequent to its approval by the City of Malibu. An amendment to the LCP does not become effective after City Council adoption until the amendment is submitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 13551 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations and certified by the CCC pursuant to Chapter 6, Article 2, of the California Coastal Act.

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project Site is located on the ocean side of PCH, along the beach, approximately one-third mile east of the Malibu Pier. Properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned CC. In the span between Malibu Beach and 22445 PCH (approximately 1 mile to east area) there are currently 20 properties zoned CV-1 and one property zoned CV-2. The only other area containing CV-2 parcels is a cluster of parcels located on the northeast corner of Malibu Canyon Road and PCH, including 2400 Civic Center Way and 24111 PCH.

The zoning and uses, including pending applications related to change in zoning and uses, in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site are as follows:

Address Zoning District Use Year Built
WEST
22766 PCH CC Multi-Family Residential 1962
22772 PCH CC Multi-Family Residential 1962
22800 PCH CV-1 Retail/Multi-Family Residential 1954
22806 PCH MF Multi-Family Residential 1954
EAST
22716 PCH CC Restaurant/Soho House 2012
22706 PCH CV-1 Restaurant/Nobu 2012
22664 MF Multi-Family Residential 1983
NORTH
22809 PCH CC Commercial/Office 1985
22775 PCH CC Commercial/Office 1960
22761 PCH CC (pending application
for change to CV-2)
Commercial/Office
(pending hotel application)
1980
210
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 16 22751 PCH CC Restaurant (Malibu Country
Kitchen)
1972
22741 PCH CC (pending application
for change to CV-2)
Commercial/Office (pending hotel
application)
2006
22729 PCH CC (pending application
for change to CV-2)
Car Wash/Former Gas Station
(pending hotel application)
1984

12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of Malibu is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the Proposed Project. The CCC will be required to review and approve the proposed LCPA request. 211
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 17 This page intentionally left blank.
212
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 18 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. □ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forest Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Population/Housing □ Public Services □ Noise
□ Transportation/Traffic □ Tribal Cultural
Resources
□ Recreation
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 213
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 19 □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title
214
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 20 Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic
quality? □ □ □ ■
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? According to the LUP, PCH is identified as a Scenic Highway. However, LUP Chapter 6, Section C.1.6.4 provides, “Scenic Areas do not include…existing commercial development…along Pacific Coast Highway east of Malibu Canyon Road.” The Project Site is on PCH approximately two miles east of Malibu Canyon Road. The parcels are in a highly developed area adjacent to neighborhood and visitor serving commercial uses, and therefore, the Project Site is excluded from the Scenic Area designation.

The Project Site is most prominently visible from vehicles traveling along PCH, the eastern shoreline edge of Malibu Lagoon State Beach and the Malibu Pier (approximately 0.4 mile west of the Project Site), along the shoreline of Carbon Beach with access points at Zonker Harris Accessway (east edge of 22706 PCH) and the west edge of 22126 PCH, as well as other public viewing areas along the ridgelines of eastern Malibu hills and Tuna Canyon. Building height and mass of existing renovated 215
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 21 structures at the Project Site have not been significantly altered from previously approved building height and mass. Any new development shall comply with the commercial development standards consistent with the land use and zoning designation. As such, the existing visual character and aesthetics of the Project Site and vicinity would be primarily unchanged. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact to the existing scenic vista.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project Site is located on and visible from PCH, which the Malibu General Plan identifies as a scenic Highway. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter the existing scenic resources at the Project Site since no new construction is proposed and there would be no alteration to views of or through the Project Site. Rather, the CV-2 land use and zoning designation ensures that visitor and neighborhood serving commercial activities would be promoted and implemented with respect to the existing rural character and natural environmental setting (City of Malibu, 1995). Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact to the existing scenic resources.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site since it utilizes the existing buildings. Because the site is presently developed, there would be no substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the Project Site or its surroundings. The CV-2 land use and zoning designation ensures that visitor and neighborhood serving commercial activities would be implemented with respect to the existing rural character and natural environmental setting (City of Malibu, 1995), which is also developed with structures for visitor and neighborhood serving commercial activities. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact to visual character.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare since the proposed uses are already operating on the Project Site, the proposed uses are allowed pursuant the CV-2 land use and zoning designations, and no new structures or other source of light or glare are proposed. Any renovations to existing buildings would be required to be consistent with the lighting standards set forth in the MMC and the LIP (City of Malibu, 2002) upon a finding that day or nighttime views in the area would not be adversely affected. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact to daytime or nighttime views due to light or glare.

NO IMPACT
216
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 22 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 217
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 23 e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farm or forest land to nonagricultural or forestry uses. There is no land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Malibu. In addition, there are no lands under a Williamson Act contract, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) located on or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

NO IMPACT
218
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 24 3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)? □ □ □ ■
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ □ ■
d. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The SCAQMD recommends the use of the following quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of temporary construction-related pollutant emissions and project operations:
 75 pounds per day reactive organic gases (ROG) for construction; 55 pounds per day for operation
 100 pounds per day nitric oxide (NOx) for construction; 55 pounds per day for operation  550 pounds per day carbon monoxide (CO)
 150 pounds per day sulfur oxides (SOx)
 150 pounds per day PM10
 55 pounds per day PM2.5
There is no construction proposed as part of the Proposed Project. There would be no impact. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The primary purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The current plan is the 2016 AQMP. The AQMP is based on SCAG land use assumptions, which in turn are based on city and county general plan and zoning designations. 219
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 25 Projects that are consistent with the underlying General Plan and Zoning designations are generally considered to be consistent with the AQMP. The Proposed Project involves a land use designation zoning change within the Commercial category. The proposed change involves converting a CC designation to a CV designation. The change in designation captures and rectifies an inconsistency between the existing legal non-conforming, uses that currently exist on the property with the current designation. The zoning and land use designation amendments would not result in any increase in population or intensification of use and, therefore, would not contribute to any exceedance of any population growth forecasts. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Project Site is currently developed with commercial land uses. The Proposed Project involves changing the current commercial land use and zoning designation to be consistent with the existing legal non-conforming and conforming commercial land uses operating on the Project Site.

Implementation of the Project would allow the continuance of the existing land uses currently on the Project Site. The Project would not involve any substantial construction activities or operation of any diesel construction equipment.

The Proposed Project would allow the continued operation of the existing neighborhood and visitor serving commercial land uses currently operating on the Project Site. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the project would not increase emissions beyond those generated by the current land use. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any increased operational emissions.

The Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standards and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any criteria pollutants. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. Neighborhood and visitor serving commercial land uses (such as the existing facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the public with an ancillary health club, kitchen for onsite food/drink services and a swimming pool) typically do not create objectionable odors. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
220
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 26 4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
221
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 27 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Project Site and surrounding area are developed. The Project Site is currently occupied by a neighborhood and visitor serving commercial use with relatively little landscape vegetation. As a result, the Project Site maintains little to no native vegetation. The Project Site provides no habitat for vertebrate species typically found in commercial areas in Southern California due to the developed character of the site and surrounding area. On-site trees may provide nesting sites for some common bird species. However, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are known or suspected to be located on the site or in the immediate vicinity. The Project Site is adjacent to the beach and Pacific Ocean. There is no development proposed on the beach. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no adverse impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project Site and surrounding properties in the area are developed with commercial and multifamily development. The Proposed Project site does not contain any riparian areas or natural communities. The Project Site is adjacent to the beach and Pacific Ocean. There is no development proposed on the beach. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The Project Site and surrounding properties in the area are developed with commercial and multifamily development. The Project Site is not located in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) according to the Malibu LCP LUP, no wetlands are present at the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The Project Site and surrounding properties in the area are developed with commercial and multi-family development. Limited ornamental and aesthetic vegetation are located on the Project Site, and in the immediate vicinity. The existing vegetation does not serve as a habitat for migratory birds or other species. Moreover, the Project would not involve new construction and would continue the currently existing and historic use of the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
222
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 28 e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the Project Site. Chapter 4 of the Malibu LCP LIP identifies areas of the City that support ESHA and sets specific development standards for ESHAs.

The Project Site is not mapped as an ESHA site in the Malibu LIP. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on ESHA.

NO IMPACT
223
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 29 This page intentionally left blank.
224
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 30 5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
as defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2, and would not involve new construction that would alter the existing on-site buildings, nor introduce new ground disturbance. As such, the Proposed Project would not affect historical or archaeological resources or disturb human remains. The Project Site has been developed and used for commercial and visitor serving uses since the 1950’s and there is no evidence of unique paleontological or geologic features present at the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
225
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 31 This page intentionally left blank.
226
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 32 6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
d. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project is a change in the land use designation and does not involve demolition or construction of the existing buildings. The existing buildings and their current operation are not being affected.

Construction Energy Demand
No use of resources and no project construction is proposed.

Operational Energy Demand
Operation of the project would contribute to area energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, water use, and overall operation of the project. Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption would be attributed to the trips generated by visitors, employees, and deliveries.

Since the operational characteristics of the existing building and uses are not changed or impacted by the proposed project, there are no anticipated operational energy consumption changes for the proposed project

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Malibu has not adopted any local energy conservation or climate action plans. However, the General Plan Conservation Element contains Conservation Goal 3, Energy Conserved, with the objective of increasing the use of innovative, energy efficient techniques and systems within the City. Goal 3 includes the following policies related to energy efficiency:
227
Environmental Checklist
Energy
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 33 Policy 3.1.1. The City shall educate the community regarding the importance of and techniques for energy conservation.

Policy 3.1.2. The City shall encourage state-of-the-art energy efficiency standards for all new construction design.

Policy 3.1.3. The City shall protect solar access.

Policy 3.1.4. The City shall encourage uses of solar and other nonpolluting, renewable energy sources.

The energy efficiency policies contained in the Conservation Element are geared towards City government action, such as City outreach to local businesses and residents to encourage sustainable practices and the adoption of local guidance and policies to reduce energy consumption. Therefore, the Conservation Element policies related to energy conservation are limited in their application to the proposed project. The operational characteristics of the existing building and uses are not changed or impacted by the proposed project, therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
228
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 34 7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? □ □ □ ■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ □ ■
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
made unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? □ □ □ ■
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
229
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 35 a.1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Any development in Southern California has the potential of exposing people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of known earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, other seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides.

The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2 that would not involve new construction or increase exposure to geologic hazards. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter any of the aforementioned conditions. The Project Site has been developed and used for commercial and commercial neighborhood and visitor serving uses since the 1950s, and the density and intensity of the use is consistent with the development in the surrounding area. There are no specifications pertaining to geologic processes, conditions, and building standards that differ between zoning and land use designations under CC, CV or CV-2.

The City of Malibu General Plan Figures S-2 (Local Onshore Fault Map) and S-3 (Offshore Fault Map) identify several regional and local earthquake faults located in the general vicinity of the City. There are no known, or mapped, active faults that pass through the Project Site. The Project Site does not fall within a currently designated California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. As noted in the Malibu General Plan, Safety and Health Element, “there are numerous faults surrounding and traversing the Malibu Area” (City of Malibu, 1995). The Malibu Coast Fault runs in an east-west orientation parallel to much of the Malibu coastline and the Project Site. Likewise, the Las Flores Canyon Thrust Fault and the Dark Canyon fault run east-west within the Santa Monica Mountains while the Santa Monica Fault runs parallel to the shoreline near the shelf edge offshore (California Department of Conservation, 2001).

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter the existing seismic or geologic conditions present at the Project Site, nor would it expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure or landslides. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
230
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 36 b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Proposed Project does not entail the physical movement or grading of soil that would result in soil erosion; geologic instability that would lead to landslides, subsidence or liquefaction; create substantial risks to life or property; or the inability to adequately support septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems as there are no specifications pertaining to the formation of such potential changes due to the differences in permitted uses and activities between zoning and land use designations CC, CV or CV-2.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter the existing geologic conditions present at the Project Site, nor would it expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure or landslides. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
231
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 37 This page intentionally left blank.
232
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 38 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ □ ■
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits the earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.

GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include fossil fuel burning (coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane generated by landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased over by 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition. Changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2009).

The CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory direction for the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions appearing in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The 2008 SCAQMD threshold considers emissions of over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year from industrial development projects to be significant (SCAQMD, 2009). 233
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 39 However, the SCAQMD’s threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. Although not formally adopted, the SCAQMD has a recommended Tier 3 screening level quantitative threshold of 3,000 metric tons for all land use types CO2e /year (SCAQMD, 2010).
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The Project Site is currently developed with commercial and visitor serving uses. The Proposed Project involves zoning and land use changes to make the existing land use legal and conforming to City of Malibu zoning and land use designations. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not involve any construction activity or operation of any diesel construction equipment. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial temporary GHG emissions.

The Proposed Project would allow the continued operation of the existing visitor serving commercial land use currently existing on the Project Site. Any future change would be evaluated by the City.

Operation of the proposed bed and breakfast inn would not increase vehicle trips to and from the Project Site compared to existing conditions, nor would it increase energy or water consumption or solid waste generation. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with operation of the Proposed Project would be similar or less than what are currently generated on-site.

Based on the above, implementation of the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed above, the project would change the City of Malibu’ zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2 for the Project Site to remedy the conflict between the historical and existing uses on the Project Site with the current zoning and land use designation. No changes to the existing operations are proposed. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new land uses to the Project Site or increase the intensity of on-site development. As such, continued operation of the existing neighborhood and visitor serving commercial use on the Project Site would not result in any conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
234
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 40 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ □ ■
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? □ □ □ ■
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of
an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
235
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 41 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? No hazardous materials, other than cleaning supplies common to kitchen, bed and breakfast inn, motel, and health club facility would be used in the operation of the Proposed Project. The Project Site is not located within 0.25 mile of a school. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) - Envirostor online database and the State Water Resources Control Board - Geotracker online database were reviewed for potential hazardous material sites and contamination at the Project Site. No listed hazardous material sites/facilities or active clean ups were identified, and no listed Federal Superfund sites were identified on the Project Site (DTSC 2018, SWRCB 2018). The Proposed Project would involve the continued operation of the historical and existing visitor and neighborhood serving commercial use at the Project Site.

Hazardous materials stored or used on-site would be limited to cleaning supplies common to kitchen, motel, and health club uses.

NO IMPACT
236
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 42 e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The Project Site is not located within two miles of a public airport and is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to airport safety.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The design of access points would be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) to ensure that emergency access meets City standards. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The City of Malibu is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry if needed. In the event of major fires, the LACFD has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the state and so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter wildfire conditions present at the Project Site, nor would it expose people or structures to potential substantial risk of loss, injury or death as a result of wildfire events compared to existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
237
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 43 This page intentionally left blank.
238
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 44 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: □ □ □ ■
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation; □ □ □ ■
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or offsite; □ □ □ ■ (iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ □ ■
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ □ ■
239
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 45 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Would the project place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is entirely developed, and the proposed project would not increase impermeable surface on the site. The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not alter any of the aforementioned conditions since the site has been developed and used for commercial and visitor serving transient lodging accommodations since the 1950s, and is consistent with the development and uses in the vicinity. Because the Proposed Project involves no change in/to the existing uses or ground disturbing construction activity, there would be no changes to hydrologic/hydraulic processes or water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to increase existing stormwater flows off the site or otherwise affect water quality.

The Project Site does not overlie groundwater supplies and is not in the vicinity of open streams or rivers, or levees or dams that may pose a risk to people or structures in the event of failure. The Project Site is located adjacent to the beach. The Proposed Project would not contribute to excess stormwater discharge or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site since the site is currently developed and no new development is proposed. The Proposed Project would have no new impacts on hydrology, water quality, or sea level rise. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact with respect to these issues.

NO IMPACT
240
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 46 This page intentionally left blank.
241
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 47 11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Proposed Project would not involve a road or other facility that would physically disrupt or divide an established community. There would be no changes or divisions to existing property lines or parcels as a result of the Proposed Project. A lot tie is proposed since the proposed use and Proposed Project encompass two parcels. The historical and existing land uses on the Project Site would remain consistent with commercial and visitor-serving transient lodging accommodation uses that have existed on the Project Site since the 1950s, and remains consistent with the development and uses in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact related to physically divide an established community.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Land Use Regulations – Permitted Uses
The Project Site is currently designated CC in the General Plan, MMC, and the LCP. The CC land use designation accommodates resident serving commercial needs of the community on parcels of land suitable for concentrated commercial activity. Transient lodging accommodations, i.e., motel, bed and breakfast inn and hotel uses are not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the CC zone; therefore, they are prohibited.
242
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 48 22752 PCH was originally developed in 1950 for use as a motel, prior to the City’s incorporation and adoption of the General Plan, MMC and LUP. The motel use on the subject property has been in continuous operation since the 1950s. However, upon adoption of the General Plan and MMC, the motel use at 22752 PCH became a legal non-conforming use because the property was designated as CC which does not allow transient lodging accommodations.

The General Plan Land Use Map amendment would change the land use designation from CC to CV.

The proposed Zoning Map and LCP amendment would change the land use and zoning designations from CC to CV-2. The CV land use designation accommodates visitor and neighborhood serving, including transient lodging accommodation uses such as hotels, motels and bed and breakfast inns, and restaurants, while ensuring respect to the rural character and natural environmental setting of the Project Site. Only the CV-2 zoning designation permits hotels. Applying the CV-2 land use and zoning designations to the Proposed Project would allow for the opportunity to obtain a CUP for the continued use of the visitor serving transient lodging accommodations and proposed ancillary uses (kitchen, swimming pool and health club).

Table 3, Permitted Uses, lists the land use changes that would occur as part of the Proposed Project. 243
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 49 Table 3 LCP Permitted Uses
Use CC CV-2
Agricultural/Animal-Related
Equestrian riding and training facilities and activities including boarding of horses and domestic animals, tournaments, shows and contests (including accessory uses such as club house with food and beverage service, pro shop, tack shop, riding rings, boarding/training/show facilities, barns, parking lots, sports courts, and living accommodations for members, their guests, participants, employees and persons required for the operation and maintenance of such facilities) CUP •
Retail
Convenience stores • CUP
Visitor-oriented goods such as recreational equipment and clothing, souvenirs, local arts/crafts, and similar uses
• P
Dining, Drinking, and Entertainment
Amphitheatre • P
Movie theaters • CUP
Refreshment stands, ice cream stands, and other fixed location outdoor food vending stands • CUP Automotive Related Uses
Vehicle washing/detailing CUP1
Recreation and Leisure
Hotels • CUP
Motels, bed and breakfast Inns • CUP
Recreation facilities (neighborhood - for use by surrounding residents and operated by a non-profit corporation or neighborhood association for non-commercial purposes) CUP •
Public, Quasi-Public, or Non-Profit Uses
Wastewater storage and hauling • CUP2
Construction/Light Industrial Uses
Construction services (neighborhood-serving) CUP •
Self-storage CUP •
In addition to a coastal development permit, the following permits are required:

P Permitted Use
CUP Conditional Use Permit
• Not Permitted (Prohibited)
1 By hand only
2 This use is conditionally permitted in the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Institutional Overlay District and only when associated with the existing wastewater treatment facility or with the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Source: Adapted from Table B Permitted Uses, City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan, 2002 Agricultural/Animal-Related
Equestrian riding and training facilities, and related activities require a CUP under CC zones, but would be prohibited under CV-2. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact since there are no equestrian uses present or proposed at the Project Site. The site is located adjacent to a major highway (PCH), and is located above the beach which could trigger water quality 244
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 50 issues. The Project Site characteristics and location are not conducive to an equestrian facility. It is not anticipated that an equestrian use would be viable at the Project Site. The Project Site is located in a highly commercial developed area, adjacent to restaurants and residential uses. It is not anticipated that an equestrian use would be desirable at this location or that the conditional use permit findings regarding compatibility with the existing and proposed uses in the area could be made.

Retail
Convenience stores and visitor-oriented retail stores are not permitted in the CC zone. They would be allowed within the CV-2 zone. A convenience store would require a CUP, and would undergo the City’s project review process to assess project-specific impacts and compatibility, while the visitororientated retail store would be a permitted use. Visitor-oriented retail activities are a visitor serving use, intended to serve transient visitors, similar to a bed and breakfast inn. The Project Site is conducive to a CV-2 designation as it is located along a major highway (PCH) that serves the City, and is in an area developed with existing visitor-serving uses, including restaurants and motels. It is anticipated that a convenience store or a visitor-oriented retail store would be desirable at the Project Site and that the conditional use permit findings regarding compatibility with the existing and proposed uses in the area could be made.

Dining, Drinking, and Entertainment
Three uses classified as Dining, Drinking, and Entertainment land uses, currently not permitted under the CC zoning designation, would be permitted under CV-2 zoning designation:
amphitheaters, movie theaters, and fixed location outdoor food vending stands. The Project Site is conducive to a CV-2 designation as it is located along a major highway (PCH) that serves the City, and is in an area developed with existing visitor-serving uses, including restaurants and motels.

Movie theaters and food vending stands would require a CUP and would be required to undergo the City’s project review process to assess project-specific impacts. The City could make a determination at that time as to whether or not the Project Site is conducive to the use and what conditions may be required to operate the use in a way that is compatible with the surrounding area.

Amphitheaters would be permitted in CV-2 zones. An amphitheater is an open air seating venue area used for gathering and entertainment. The size of an amphitheater would be limited in size by the site constraints and required parking. The use would be consistent with the character and natural environmental setting of the Project Site and vicinity. It is anticipated that an amphitheater, movie theater, or a fixed location outdoor food vending stand would be desirable at the Project Site and that the conditional use permit findings regarding compatibility with the existing and proposed uses in the area could be made.

Recreation and Leisure – Hotels, Motels, and Bed and Breakfast Inns Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns are not permitted under the CC zoning designation. The existing motel has been in operation since the early 1950’s and constitutes a legal nonconforming use. The CV-2 and CV-1 LCP land use designations allow motels and bed and breakfast inns as a conditionally permitted use because the CV zones are intended to provide visitor serving needs. CV2 is the only land use and zoning designation that conditionally permits hotels.

The Project Site contains a motel, that has been in operation since the early 1950s, which would continue to be in use, and the existing health club with pool and kitchen would also continue to be 245
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 51 in use. The two uses would be combined into one use, and function as one, thus changing the use to a bed and breakfast inn as defined by the MMC and LCP.

The proposed CV-2 designation creates an entitlement path so that a conditional use permit can be requested. The CV-2 designation will allow visitor serving commercial activities to be provided at the Project Site and ensures that the existing visitor serving uses would continue to be maintained.

The Project does not involve physical changes, but rather would allow the continuation of the longstanding visitor serving use at the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

Recreation and Leisure – Recreational Facilities
Recreational facilities for neighborhood and non-commercial uses are permitted under the CC designation. This specific use would not be permitted under CV-2, which allows visitor serving uses.

Uses for the Proposed Project entail the continued operation of transient lodging accommodations with a kitchen (a bed and breakfast inn as defined by the MMC and LCP), with ancillary health club and swimming pool, which is consistent with the intended visitor serving purposes of the CV-2 zone.

No impact would occur.

Public, Quasi-Public, or Non-Profit Uses
Wastewater storage and hauling uses would be permitted under CV-2 whereas, under CC, those uses are not allowed. However, these land uses are limited to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Institutional Overlay District (24000 Civic Center Way / APNs 4458-028-006 and 4458-028-020; (City of Malibu, 2016)). Other public/quasi-public uses for the CV districts are required to provide 50 percent visitor-serving square footage. The Project Site is outside of the aforementioned overlay district. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

Construction/Light Industrial Uses
The Proposed Project entails the operation of a bed and breakfast inn with a health club, swimming pool and kitchen, which would be consistent with the intended visitor serving purposes of the CV-2 zone. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

Parking Regulations
The provision of parking spaces is contingent upon specific land uses and adherence to the parking standards as outlined in MMC §17.48.030. The Proposed Project entails the operation of a bed and breakfast inn, which is consistent with the intended visitor serving purposes of the CV-2 zone.

Because the Proposed Project is not increasing the number of guest rooms or visitors, there is no additional demand for parking no change to the existing parking is proposed. The applicable parking requirements for a bed and breakfast inn are the same as for a motel, as they are a similar use pursuant to the MMC and LCP use category “Motels, bed and breakfast inns.” Development Standards
The allowed floor area ratio (FAR) for CC and CV parcels is 0.15. The CC zone allows the FAR to be increased to a maximum of 0.20 with approval by the City Council, where public benefits and amenities are provided as part of the project. The CV designation allows the FAR to be increased to a maximum of 0.25 with approval by the City Council, where public benefits and amenities are provided as part of the project. The rezoning would increase the maximum allowable FAR by 0.05. 246
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 52 The existing FAR at the Project Site is 0.25, which does not exceed the maximum allowable for the CV Zone.

The commercial development standards applicable to commercial development on a CC or CV-2 parcel are the same. The rezoning would not change the commercial development standards, including building height, yards and setbacks. The Proposed Project is seeking to harmonize existing nonconforming uses with proper land use and zoning designations in order to maintain and ensure that the continued future uses provide for visitor serving needs.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
The Project Site is not located within a designated ESHA as shown on the Malibu LCP ESHA resources map and does not fall within any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. As such, there would be no impact to applicable conservation plans.

NO IMPACT
247
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 53 This page intentionally left blank.
248
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 54 12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The Project Site is developed with structures and impermeable surfaces (hardscape such as pavement and parking areas), except for the beach portions of the properties. There are no mineral extraction activities occurring at the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not entail construction of structures or facilities for the purposes of extraction or exploration of mineral resources. The Project Site is not located in a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated in the Malibu General Plan, or the LCP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact or loss of a mineral resource recovery site as designated in existing City planning documents.

NO IMPACT
249
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 55 This page intentionally left blank.
250
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 56 13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ □ ■
b. Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels? □ □ □ ■
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project?
d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise?
The Proposed Project would not alter the existing noise conditions at the Project Site, nor would it increase the exposure of people or structures to ground-borne vibration or noise, a substantial 251
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 57 permanent increase in ambient noise levels, or substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels because the site is already developed for commercial and visitor serving uses and would continue similar operations. Furthermore, the Project Site is not located within two miles of a public airport or subject to an airport land use plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact related to noise.

NO IMPACT
252
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 58 14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) produces forecasts of regional population, which form the basis for growth projection in SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP-SCS). SCAG’s growth forecast for the City of Malibu projects a population of 14,100 in 2040; an increase of 1,400 from the 2012 estimated population of 12,700 (Southern California Association of Governments, 2016). As discussed in the Malibu General Plan (Section 1.3.1), the buildout figures for residential and commercial development represent maximum theoretical buildout, which is based on vacant acreage (City of Malibu, 1995).

The proposed land use and zoning designation amendments would not allow for new residential development. The Proposed Project is intended to allow for the continued operation of a transient lodging accommodations. The existing, legal non-conforming motel would be reclassified as a bed and breakfast inn, consistent with the MMC and LCP definition, with an associated health club, kitchen and swimming pool. Because these buildings, and related jobs, currently exist, it is not anticipated that a significant increase in population would occur. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly and would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not involve the demolition of any residential structures or displace housing units or people as a result. As such, the Proposed Project would not necessitate the 253
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 59 construction of replacement housing. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
254
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 60 15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Project Site is within the service area of LACFD. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station No. 70 located at 3970 Carbon Canyon Road, in the City of Malibu, approximately 1.2 miles (driving distance) east of the project site with access via PCH. The Proposed Project maintains the existing uses on the Project Site, and involves amendments to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2 to allow the existing uses to be combined to provide a unified use as a bed and breakfast inn. The Proposed Project would not increase demand for fire protection service or require the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities and therefore, would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental 255
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 61 impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) provides police protection service for the City of Malibu, including the Project Site. The nearest LACSD station is the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station located at 27050 Agoura Road in the City of Agoura, approximately 11.1 miles north of the Project Site. The Station serves the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, and Westlake Village, as well as the surrounding communities of Chatsworth Lake Manor, Malibu Lake, Topanga, and West Hills (LACSD 2016). Because the proposed project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2, the Proposed Project would not increase demand for police protection service and would not adversely affect the Station’s resources and operations or create the need for new or expanded facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. As such, the Proposed Project would not alter any of the aforementioned governmental or school facilities, parks, or public facilities. The Proposed Project would not generate additional need for the maintenance of public facilities (including roads and other governmental services), as the Project Site contains privately-owned facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
256
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 62 16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. The Project Site would continue to be used for neighborhood and visitor serving commercial activities and transient lodging accommodations. The Proposed Project would not generate new residents who would increase the need for additional parkland or recreational facilities, and as such, new or expanded recreational facilities would not be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
257
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 63 This page intentionally left blank.
258
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 64 17 Transportation/Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use
(e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
259
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 65 a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? f. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. The Project Site has been developed and used for commercial uses, and neighborhood and visitor-serving transient lodging accommodations since the 1950s. The motel has been in continuous operations since the 1950s, operating in a compatible manner with surrounding uses.

The Proposed Project would not increase the intensity of development at the Site. The Proposed Project does not entail the alteration or construction of any additional roads, nor would it create any hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
260
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 66 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Cod Section 2024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe. □ □ □ ■
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 261
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 67 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 2024.1? The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. The Project Site has been developed and used for commercial uses, and neighborhood and visitor-serving transient lodging accommodations since the 1950s. The Proposed Project would not increase the intensity of development and does not entail new development nor subterranean work with the potential to cause substantial adverse impacts to historic or tribal cultural resources.

The OWTS will be installed at 22762 PCH pursuant to a previously approved CDP. The potential for resources was previously evaluated, and project was conditioned to address the discovery of potential resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.

NO IMPACT
262
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 68 19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ □ ■
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
263
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 69 d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The Proposed Project is an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2. Power, gas, and communication systems already service the Project Site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect any of the aforementioned utilities and service systems since it would not increase land use intensity beyond current conditions. The Project Site has been developed and used for commercial uses, and neighborhood and visitor-serving transient lodging accommodations since the 1950s. The Proposed Project would not increase the intensity of development at the Project Site. The continued use of the Project Site as a bed and breakfast inn is consistent with and similar to historical visitor-serving uses on the Project Site and in the vicinity.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact. 264
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 70 20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
f. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
h. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
i. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is in a commercial area of the City of Malibu and is not within a state responsibility area (SRA). The nearest SRA is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. Undeveloped hillside areas are located north the project site between the project site and developed residential areas.

According to CalFIRE, the project site is located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) for wildland fires (CalFIRE 2020).

As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the LACFD would provide fire prevention, fire protection, and emergency response for the proposed project. The LACFD would review the bed and breakfast inn to regulate the maximum occupancy and ensure that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented. In addition, the proposed 265
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 71 project would comply with applicable policies and ordinances for fire prevention, protection, and safety as required by the LACFD, which include provision of fire alarms and detection systems, and automatic fire sprinklers. The bed and breakfast inn use would also be required to clearly post evacuation routes and access points within the buildings to direct guests on emergency evacuations in the event of a fire. Emergency access to the site would be maintained from PCH. No construction is proposed. The project would not impede traffic on PCH. Therefore, there are no impacts related to emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans during project operation.

NO IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The majority of land within the City of Malibu, including the project site, is classified as being in a VHFHSZ (CalFIRE 2020). The project site is located in a commercial area of the City and is located along PCH on the north side, and the ocean on the south side. Operation of the bed and breakfast inn would not involve activities known to cause or exacerbate wildfires.

NO IMPACT
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The project site is in an urbanized area and is classified as a VHFHSZ. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the nearest state responsibility area (CalFIRE 2020). The project site is developed and consists of existing commercial buildings and associated infrastructure. The project would be served by existing roads and utilities and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the project would not require additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk and cause temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

NO IMPACT
266
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 72 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? □ □ □ ■
b. Have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ □ ■
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ □ ■
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed in items 4, Biological Resources, and 5, Cultural Resources, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect biological or cultural resources. The Proposed Project would not increase the intensity of historical and existing onsite development. Therefore, it would not contribute to any cumulative effects associated with known, probable, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Malibu 267
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Administrative Draft Initial Study –Negative Declaration 73 and adjacent communities. The Proposed Project entails an amendment to existing zoning and land use designations from CC to CV and CV-2 at a Project Site that has been developed and used for commercial uses, and neighborhood and visitor-serving transient lodging accommodations since the 1950s. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts related to such issues as air quality, hazards, noise, or transportation; therefore, it would not adversely affect human beings.

NO IMPACT
268
City of Malibu
22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map Amendments and Conditional Use Permits 66 References
Bibliography
California Department of Conservation. (2001). Retrieved from Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Malibu Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California.

California Department of Finance. (2015). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State - January 1, 2014 and 2015. Retrieved 12 2, 2015, from California Department of Finance:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php City of Malibu. (1995, November). City of Malibu General Plan. Malibu. ____. (2002, September). Malibu Local Coastal Program, Local Implementation Plan. ____. (2002). Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. ____. (2016). City of Malibu Municipal Code.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Envirostor Database. 2018. Accessed February 2018. Web accessible at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Southern California Association of Governments. (2016). Final 2016 RTP/SCS.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Geotracker Database. 2018. Accessed February 2018. Web accessible at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1967). Soils of the Malibu Area, California, with farm and nonfarm interpretations: Interim Report of the Malibu Area. Berkeley, California. 269
ATTACHMENT 11

ATTACHMENT A

SUPPLEMENT TO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 19-002
(SCH No. 2021120124)
An Initial Study (IS) was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.

The IS analyzed the project as originally submitted which included the applicant’s request to rezone the properties at 22752 & 22762 PCH from Community Commercial (CC) to Commercial Visitor Serving 2 (CV-2). The City’s Planning Division determined that with standard conditions of approval, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment; subsequently, a Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (December 2, 2021 through January 3, 2022) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120124). The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/ND at their meeting on December 18, 2023 and recommended the City Council adopt the ND, finding on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the ND reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

However, at the December 18, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant’s request for the CV-2 zoning amendment be reduced to a CV-1 zoning amendment to lessen the intensity of the project site from being used as a “hotel” which is a conditionally allowed use in CV2. By reducing the zoning to CV-1, conditionally allowed uses for transient lodging would still include “motels” and “bed and breakfast inns” but not hotels. As defined in the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), “hotel” is differentiated from other transient lodging opportunities such as “motel” and “bed and breakfast inn” in that hotels provide additional services open to the public, such as restaurants and meeting rooms, where motels and bed and breakfast inns do not. The Planning Commission accepted the bed and breakfast inn use as part of its recommendation for approval to the City Council subject to a reduction in the rezoning to CV-1. The proposed bed and breakfast inn will only provide services to guests of the bed and breakfast inn. It will not contain any meeting rooms. It will not operate a restaurant or bar open to the general public and it will have dedicated kitchen facilities adequate to provide meals to its guests only. It will not host special 270
ATTACHMENT 11
events for any non-bed and breakfast inn guests. Access to the existing fitness room and swimming pool would be exclusive to its guests only.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the Community Development Department analyzed the rezone reduction from CV-2 to CV-1 with the analysis and conclusions identified in ND No. 19-002 as prepared by the Planning Division in 2021 and circulated or public review in 2022. Because CV-1 zoning would provide for less intensity of use at the site by disallowing the potential for a hotel operation with additional facilities open to the public, thereby limiting transient overnight lodging at the properties to motels and bed and breakfast inns, the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reduce the rezone from CV-2 to CV-1 is not a substantial revision to the project analyzed in the ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(b) as it will not result in any new significant environmental effects. Therefore, the ND did not need to be recirculated and may proceed forward for City Council consideration of adoption. The ND finds that the proposed project would have no potentially significant adverse impacts to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
==
Supplement Prepared: September 4, 2025
Updated Agency Contact: Joseph D. Smith, AICP, Contract Planner (619) 943-1337
[email protected]
Updated Applicant Contact: John C. Heintz
Latham & Watkins LLP
(213) 891-1560
[email protected]
271
ATTACHMENT 12

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, October 13, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. on the item listed below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

RYOKAN BED AND BREAKFAST INN
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16-001, Initial Study No. 17-002, Negative Declaration No. 19-002, General Plan Map Amendment No. 16-001, Zoning Map Amendment No. 15-001, Coastal Development Permit No. 23-046, Coastal Development Permit Amendment No. 25-002 to Coastal Development Permit No. 13-066, Conditional Use Permit No. 16-007, Lot Tie No. 21-001, and Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Sale of Alcohol – The City Council will consider adoption of a Negative Declaration and the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve a change in the land use designation and zoning of the Property from Community Commercial (CC) to Commercial Visitor Serving-1 (CV-1) and conversion of the existing non-conforming use motel and adjacent private gym and pool to operate conjunctively as a bed and breakfast inn with 17 guestrooms and kitchen facililties, a 300 square foot gym, and a 600 square foot swimming pool, all exclusive to the guests of the bed and breakfast inn only. The application requests the sale of alcohol for onsite consumption, a lot tie for the Property to operate conjunctively, and conversion of office space at 22762 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) into one new guest suite for the bed and breakfast inn. An amendment to Condition No. 3 in previously issued Coastal Development Permit No. 13-066 for 22762 PCH is included to restrict the use of the swimming pool to guests of the bed and breakfast inn. The amendments to the General Plan and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) are corollary to the amendments made to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the project will not be effective until the LCP amendment is certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

Property Location: 22752 PCH (Nobu Ryokan Motel) / APN 4452-004-035 22762 PCH (Malibu Tidepool Health Club) / APN 4452-004-034 Applicant: Latham and Watkins LLP
Owners: North Broadway Ventures, LLC (22752 PCH)
Wavebreak, LLC (22762 PCH)
Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) (22752 and 22762 PCH) Land Use: Community Commercial (CC) (22752 PCH)
Commercial Visitor Serving-One (CV-1) (22762 PCH)
Applications Filed: November 2, 2015 and June 2, 2017
Case Planner: Joseph D. Smith, AICP, Contract Planner
(619) 943-1337
[email protected]
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study (IS) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. The IS analyzed the project and determined that with standard conditions of approval, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; subsequently, a Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review period pursuant 272
ATTACHMENT 12
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (December 2, 2021 through January 3, 2022) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120124). The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/ND at its meeting on December 18, 2023 and recommended the City Council adopt the ND, finding on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the ND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

At the December 18, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant’s request for the CV-2 zoning amendment be reduced to a CV-1 zoning amendment to lessen the intensity of the project site from being used as a hotel which is a conditionally allowed use in CV-2. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a substantial revision to the project analyzed in the ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(b), as it will not result in any new significant environmental effects.

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

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS - Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Rebecca Evans, Senior Management Analyst, at (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

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

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS

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

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: September 18, 2025
273

Page 1 of 2 ends

Malibu City CouncilOctober 27, 2025

Malibu City Council
October 27, 2025