Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, March 18, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Justin Block, Block and Block
[email protected]
Project Address: 33610 PACIFIC COAST HWY
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 19-011
Project Description: NSFR, NOWTS, pool, spa, retaining wall Date of Review: March 3, 2024
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 2/22/24
Site Survey: 2/22/24
Landscape Plan: 2/22/24
Hydrozone Plan: 2/22/24
Irrigation Plan: 2/22/24
Fuel Modification Plan: 2/22/24
Grading Plan: 2/22/24
OWTS Plan: 2/22/24
Bio Assessment: 2/2/24 (Forde Biological)
Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews: 1/1/24 (Incomplete)

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

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

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

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 114
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
March 3, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION:

1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 149,674 gallons per year (gpy). The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 107,609 gpy. Therefore, the project meets the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

2. The submitted biological assessment provided sufficient evidence that there is no mapped ESHA within 300 feet of the proposed residence due to the presence of existing fuel modification zones.

Additionally, the mapped stream to the north and east was determined to not be a stream by Forde Biological and it was determined to be an erosional run-off feature. The City Biologist concurs with this determination.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

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

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

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

For approval contact:

Roberto Perez Sandoval
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Ron Dhillon
Address: 23533 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 317-0209
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check. 115
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
March 3, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

F. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). The planting plan must adhere to the view corridor requirements for the property.

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

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

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

Lawns are prohibited on slopes > 5%.

J. Slope planting measures such as contour planting and terracing or other techniques shall be incorporated on slopes to interrupt the flow and rate of surface runoff in order to prevent surface soil erosion.

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

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

M. All new development including structures, septic systems, or landscaping, shall be set back no less than (50) feet from the (bluff).

N. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited. 116
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
March 3, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

2. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
117

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

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

TO: City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE 07/18/2023 APPLICANT / CONTACT: Justin Block, Block and Block
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 1880 Century Park East
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 552-3336
APPLICANT FAX #: (310) 552-1850
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, NOWTS, pool, spa, retaining wall Los Angeles, CA 90067
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 19-011
JOB ADDRESS: 33610 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Reviewer
Conformance Review Complete for project submittals reviewed with respect to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan/Local Implementation Plan (LCP/LIP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC). The Conditions of Planning conformance review and plan check review comments listed on the attached review sheet(s) (or else handwritten below) shall be addressed prior to plan check approval.

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

OWTS Plot Plan: NOT REQUIRED
REQUIRED (attached hereto) REQUIRED (not attached)
Signature Date
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
July 25, 2023
118
City of Malibu
Environmental Health ● Environmental Sustainability Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road ꞏ Malibu, California ꞏ 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 ꞏ Fax (310) 456-3356 ꞏ www.malibucity.org

Page 1 of 4 ends

T:\Project Review\Pacific Coast Hwy\33610 PCH\CDP 19-011\230725_33610 PCH_CDP 19-011_EH Conf Rev_CRC.docx Recycled Paper

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email
address)
Justin Block
[email protected]
Project Address: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 19-011
Project Description: NSFR, NOWTS, pool, spa, retaining wall - Revised Date of Review: July 25, 2023
Reviewer: Matt Janousek Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Architectural Plans: Burdge and Associates: Plans dated 3-4-19, revised 7-10-20, updated 3-18-22.

STUDY: Plans dated 5-25-2023.

Grading Plans: LC Engineering: Plans dated 12-14-18; updated 3-24-22; updated 5-25-23 Landscape Plans: Mark Tessier Landscape Architecture: Plans dated 5-24-23 OWTS Plan: EPD: OWTS plan dated 2-14-19; updated 7-16-20, updated 2-23-22; updated 5-25-23 OWTS Report: EPD: OWTS report dated 2-14-19; updated 3-22-22; Reduction in setback letter dated 5-29-19; Revised report dated 7-16-20; Add. I report dated 6-7-23 Geology Report: Stratum: Geotechnical report dated 12-21-18.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.: Response to Geotechnical Review dated 6-14-19; Response to Geotechnical Review dated 6-14-23.

Miscellaneous: Larry Young: Percolation test report dated 1-23-19. Reduction in setback letter by GeoSoils Consultants Inc. dated 6-13-19, revised 8-25-20. Reduction in setback letter by LC Engineering Group Inc. dated 6-4-1, revised 8-25-20. Reduction in setback letter by Burdge and Associates dated 10-2-20; Revision and Response letter by STUDY dated 6-23-2023
Previous Reviews: 3-12-19, 8-21-19 (CRC), 10-21-20, 7-7-22; 7-15-19 (ECDP 19-015)

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

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)
Based upon the project description and submittal information noted above, a conformance review was completed for a new advanced onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) proposed to serve the onsite wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the subject property. The proposed advanced OWTS meets the minimum requirements of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Please distribute this review sheet to all of the project 119
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
July 25, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

T:\Project Review\Pacific Coast Hwy\33610 PCH\CDP 19-011\230725_33610 PCH_CDP 19-011_EH Conf Rev_CRC.docx Recycled Paper 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 subject development project. In order to obtain Environmental Health final approval of the project OWTS Plot Plan and associated construction drawings (during Building Safety plan check), all conditions and plan check items listed below must be addressed through submittals to the Environmental Health office.

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

The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day (gpd), and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture units, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design 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 (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter, ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for “package” systems; and the design basis for engineered systems.
120
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
July 25, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

T:\Project Review\Pacific Coast Hwy\33610 PCH\CDP 19-011\230725_33610 PCH_CDP 19-011_EH Conf Rev_CRC.docx Recycled Paper d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit, subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features.

Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day (gpd) and gallons per square foot per day (gpsf). Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gpd). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units, and building occupancy characteristics. e. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the plan scale is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18” x 22” for review by Environmental Health). [Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans for are also required for review by Building & Safety and Planning.]
4) Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 5) Traffic-Rated Slab Plan(s): All project traffic rated slab 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. Traffic rated covers shall also be provided for the seepage pits.
6) Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted. 7) Operations & Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed advanced OWTS.
8) Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed advanced onsite wastewater treatment system shall be submitted prior to Environmental Health approval. Please note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable. 9) Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Covenant: A covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the OWTS serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Malibu Municipal Code. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator. Please submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder. 121
City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet
CDP 19-011
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
July 25, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

T:\Project Review\Pacific Coast Hwy\33610 PCH\CDP 19-011\230725_33610 PCH_CDP 19-011_EH Conf Rev_CRC.docx Recycled Paper 10) Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 11) City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 12) City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 13) City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
14) Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.
15) Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with Malibu Municipal Code, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the Environmental Health office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Environmental Health file
Planning Department
122
2 G800
consultants solutions
Scale: 1"=20'
OWS SITE PLAN 1
5/25/2023 2
1 CDP_rev 1 5/25/23
7/25/23
123
12 G800
consultants solutions
Scale: N.T.S.

ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM SEEPAGE PIT ELEVATIONS 4
Scale: N.T.S.

ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC 6
Scale: N.T.S.

ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM GENERAL NOTES 2
Scale: N.T.S.

ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM CALCULATIONS 5 Scale: 1"=40'-0"ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM OVERALL SITE PLAN 1 Scale: N.T.S.

ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM KEYNOTES 3
5/25/2023
1 CDP_rev 1 5/25/23
124
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1,250 1
C. KENNELLY 11-13-2020
125

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT
DATE
SCALE
DRAWING NO.

DRAWN BY

THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE

THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF THE

ARCHITECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON

ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN
AGREEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT.

WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED
ON THE JOB SITE. DISCREPANCIES SHALL

BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE

ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
24911 PACIFIC COAST HWY.

MALIBU, CA 90265
TEL. 310-456-5905

KEYWELL

RESIDENCE
33610 PACIFIC COAST

HIGHWAY
MALIBU, CA 90265
Plot Date: 11/10/20
D.W.B., J.T.,
A-003

FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE

PLAN & ROAD PROFILE

KEYWELL RESIDENCE
19 /Users/upadi/Documents/ BAA Corona Files/Keywell - 33610 PCH/2d:3d/33610 PCH_20-11-09_V21.pln 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 7R(0'-6")
6T(1')
5480
6060 28100
2050
2050
5060
3068
3060
90260 FX.
5090
7'-5 1/2"
20'
35'-4 3/4"
10'-7 3/4"
22'-2 1/4"
22'-2 1/4"
129.50'
129.700'
126.375'
126.375'
129.700'
126.875'
126.450'
134.000'
134.000'
126.875'
126.875'
126.875'
STUCCO
WALL
OH

INFINITY TROUGH
124.43' RIM
122.43' BOTTOM
126.5' TOW
126.3' FG
20060
GATE
128.75' TOW
124.71' TOW
127' TOW
130.0' TOW
124.71' TOW
127.5' TOW
MOTOR
GATE

PROJECTION LINE
ABOVE
POOL EQUIP.

BELOW
AC
AC AC
16"
DN
DN
WOOD
GATE
N80°45'30"W

30.01 N80°45'30"W

13.67 N09°14'30"E 40.00'
2074.72' 30.01

40.00'
N33°45'30"W
629.28' 4968.82'

FD CALTRANS S&W
STA. 115+83.18

NOT FOUND
210.00'
50'
40'
10 0'
7702.63'
2734.01'

FD PK&W
@ 10" O/S

87.39 39.33'
N33°45'30"W

FD MAG & W
PLS 6847

10.0' PROD
10'
130'
(N) F.F.
(E)CATV (E)VERIZON
(E)EDISON
(E)MAILBOXES
(E) WM
GATE
PA.

PA.

PA.
-6"
PA.

PA.

TWO STORY

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

W/ ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT
POOL
TROUGH
CONC.

PAD
CONC.

PAD
PA.

CONC.

PAD
33616 PCH

OUTLINE
+126.875'
(N) F.F.
+130.0'
NEW
GARAGE
126.375'
+126.875'
CONC.

PAD
CONC.

PAD
DN
+30"

COUNTER
PA.
129.68'
F.S.
130.00'
F.S.

DN
+132'
F.S.

12.0'

8.0'

7.5'

12.0'

5.0'

5.75'

13.5'
129.89'
F.S.

SLP

SLP SLP SLP
(N) F.F.
+126.8'
(N) F.F.
+126.75'
(2) 9 x 18

PARKING SPACE
SEPTIC
TANK
PA.

PA.

UP
DN
DN
SLP
PA.

PA.

GATE
TRACK
GATE
MOTOR
PAD

HOA (E) GATE

TO REMAIN
20% SIDEYARD SETBACK

PRPSD FY SETBACK
PRPSD

SY SETBACK

WALKWAY
PATH
(GRAVEL)

OUTDOOR
BAR
N 16080
1832
CONC.

PAD
N
B
5'
5'
5'
5'
20'
5'
R 22'
R 32'
R 42'
R 22'
R 32'
R 42'
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTER

WALKING ACCESS ROUTE
6" x 4" x 2.5"

FIRE HYDRANT
A1 - 150'
B1 - 150'
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTER

WALKING ACCESS ROUTE
5' WIDE FIREFIGHTER

WALKING ACCESS ROUTE

TWO STORY

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

W/ ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
1 %
SLOPE
1 %
SLOPE
SLOPE
1 %
CONC.

PAD
DECK
GRAVEL
1 %
SLOPE
1 %
SLOPE
20060
GATE
1 %
SLOPE
SLOPE

7.8 %
A
20' WIDE MANUALLY OPERATED

SECURITY GATE TO BE

MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT

ALL TIMES
13'-3 1/4" 34'-4 1/2"
134.00' 134.00'
42'-1 1/4"
131.29'
4°
6' HIGH ENTRY GATE

7.8%
SLOPE
PL

END OF VEHICULAR
ACCESS

FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS
(LESS THAN 150; NO TURNAROUND REQUIRED)
(N) 4" THK CONC O/ 4" THK CLASS 2 BASE MAT DRIVEWAY

PACIFIC
COAST

HIGHWAY
1 %
SLOPE
(N) 4" THK CONC O/ 4" THK
CLASS 2 BASE MAT DRIVEWAY
A-A1 = 150'
B-B1 = 150'

FIREFIGHTER WALKING ACCESS

HOSE PULL DISTANCE
FIRE DEPT. VEHICULAR

AND WALKING ACCESS
FIRE DEPT. LEGEND

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES

1. PROVIDE A MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF 20 FEET, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED SECURITY GATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 503.6 AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE "CLEAR TO SKY" FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO WITHIN 150 FEET OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR BUILDING WALLS. FIRE CODE 503.2.1

2. DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS IN EXCESS OF 150 FEET IN LENGTH SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND. FIRE CODE 503.2.5

3. FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A 32 FOOT CENTERLINE TURNING RADIUS. FIRE CODE 503.2.4

4. THE GRADIENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS ROADS SHALL NOT EXCEED 15% UNLESS APPROVED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. FIRE CODE 503.2.7

5. A MINIMUM 5 FOOT WIDE APPROVED FIREFIGHTER ACCESS WALKWAY LEADING FROM THE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TO THE BUILDINGS EXTERIOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIREFIGHTING AND RESCUE PURPOSES. FIRE CODE 504.1

6. GRADE BREAKS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ANGLE OF APPROACH OR DEPARTURE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS.

7. THE INSPECTION, HYDROSTATIC TEST AND FLUSHING OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER PIPING SHALL BE WITNESSED BY AN AUTHORIZED FIRE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE. FIRE CODE 901.6

8. PROVIDE AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS SET FORTH BY BUILDING CODE 903. AND FIRE CODE 903. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SPRINKLER PLAN CHECK UNIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

REASON : FIRE CODE 903.2.8 AND 903.2.11.7
LOCATION : MAIN HOUSE, GUEST HOUSE, AND DETACHED GARAGE TYPE OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM : FIRE CODE 903.3.1.3 - NFPA 13D

9. FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE HARDSCAPE ALL WEATHER ACCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S ALL WEATHER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. FIRE CODE 503.2.3

10. APPROVED BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABET LETTERS, AND BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5 INCH. FIRE CODE 505.1

11. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH APPROVED SIGNS. TEMPORARY SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT EACH STREET INTERSECTION WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADWAYS ALLOWS PASSAGE BY VEHICLES. SIGNS SHALL BE OF AN APPROVED SIZE, WEATHER RESISTANT AND BE MAINTAINED UNTIL REPLACED BY PERMANENT SIGNS. FIRE CODE 505.1

12. EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPENABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. BUILDING CODE 1008.1.9

13. ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS "A" AS SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 1505.1.1 (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.5.2 & R902)

14. ROOF VALLEY FLASHINGS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 0.0019-INCH (NO. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE) CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER A MINIMUM 36-INCH WIDE UNDERLAYMENT CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF NO. 72 ASTM CAP SHEET MEETING RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY. (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.5.3 AND BUILDING CODE 705A.3)

15. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER. (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.534 AND BUILDING CODE 705A.4)

16. CLEARANCE OF BRUSH AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED PER FIRE CODE 325

17. FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN A SERVICEABLE MANNER PRIOR TO AND DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. FIRE CODE 501.4

18. PROVIDE APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES OR MARKINGS THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING - FIRE LANE.

SIGNS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 12 INCHES WIDE BY 18 INCHES HIGH AND HAVE RED LETTERS ON A WHITE REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND. SIGNS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS, TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE ENTRANCE TO SUCH ROAD, OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEROF AND AT INTERVALS, AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR. FIRE CODE 503.3.

19. AN APPROVED KEY BOX, LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 1037 SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY FIRE CODE 506. THE LOCATION OF EACH KEY BOX SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR.

20. THE ELECTRIC SECURITY GATE SHALL PROVIDE AN APPROVED MEANS OF EMERGENCY OPERATION, AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES AND REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN DEFECTIVE. ELECTRIC GATE OPERATORS, WHERE PROVIDED, SHALL BE LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 325. GATES INTENDED FOR AUTOMATIC OPERATION SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F220. GATES SHALL BE OF THE SWINGING OR SLIDING TYPE. CONSTRUCTION OF GATES SHALL BE OF MATERIALS THAT ALLOW MANUAL OPERATION BY ONE PERSON. FIRE CODE 503.6.

21. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL MEASURE 6" X 4" X 2-1/2", BRASS OR BRONZE, CONFORMING TO AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION STANDARD C503, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATION 8.

22. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WIRING PROVIDED THAT SUCH WIRING IS SERVED FROM A COMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP. RESIDENTIAL CODE R314.4

23. AN APPROVED CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN DWELLING UNITS AND IN SLEEPING UNITS WITHIN WHICH FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES ARE INSTALLED AND IN DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES. REQUIRED

CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WIRING WHERE SUCH WIRING IS SERVED FROM A COMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACK-UP. WHERE MORE THAN ONE

CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IS REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT OR WITHIN A SLEEPING UNIT THE

ALARM SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN A MANNER THAT ACTIVATION OF ONE ALARM SHALL ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALARMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT. RESIDENTIAL CODE R315.1.2, BUILDING CODE 420.4.1

24. VENTS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF FLAME AND EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS.

VENT OPENINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY CORROSION-RESISTANT, NONCOMBUSTIBLE WIRE MESH WITH A MINIMUM 1/16TH INCH OPENINGS AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. VENTS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN EAVES OR CORNICES. (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.6.1 AND BUILDING CODE 706A.1)

25. CLEARANCE OF BRUSH AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED PER FIRE CODE 325

FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE HYDRANTS AT THIS LOCATION IS 1,750 GPM, AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE, FOR A DURATION OF ONE (2) HOUR OVER AND ABOVE MAXIMUM DAILY DOMESTIC DEMAND. FIRE CODE 507.3 AND APPENDIX B105.1 APPENDIX B.

THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION:

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PER THE BUILDING CODE: TYPE VB

VHFHSZ YES
SIZE OF LOT (ACRES) 0.45 AC
FIRE FLOW BASED ON THE FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION AREA 1,750 GPM REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS (MAXIMUM 50%): 875 GPM
TOTAL FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: 1,250 GPM (MIN)
# SQ.FT.

BUILDING AREA UNDER

HORIZONTAL PROJECTION

ROAD DETAIL
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

FIRE DEPARTMENT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

ROAD PROFILE

AS NOTED

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED

FOR ACCESS

REQUIREMENTS ONLY
BY: ____________________

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEER
DATE: _______________
C. KENNELLY 11-13-2020

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED

FOR FIRE HYDRANT

LOCATION ONLY
BY: ____________________

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEER
DATE: _______________
C. KENNELLY 11-13-2020
FEPC2020-1268

RE-SUBMIT FULL

ARCHITECTURAL

DRAWINGS TO THE

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FOR BUILDING PLAN
APPROVAL KNOX KEY SWITCH MODEL #3502
126
MDN 24292
July 2, 2024
W.O. 7300
PEACHES LLC (DBA 33616 MALIBU LLC)
285 Old Green Bay Road
Glencoe, Illinois 60022
Attention: Mr. Brad Keywell
Subject: Review of Revised Grading and Drainage Plan, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California
Reference: GeoSoils Consultants, Inc., February 9, 2024, Response to City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Letter dated January 12, 2024, 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California
Dear Mr. Keywell:

As requested, GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GSC) has reviewed the revised Grading and Drainage Plan for the subject project. The revisions to the plan include moving the proposed wood deck north and outside of the 1.5 Factor of Safety and Bluff Treat Line (Sheet C2.1).

The revisions are acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or any other aspects of the project, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,
GEOSOILS CONSULTANTS, INC.

RUDY F. RUBERTI KAREN L. MILLER
CEG 1708 GE 2257
Encl: City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Letter dated April 12, 2024 Sheet C2.1, Enlarged Grading and Drainage Plan by LC Engineering Group cc: (1) Addressee
oSoils Consultants Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
6634 Valjean Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406 Phone: (818) 785-2158 Fax: (818) 785-1548 3/31/26
7/8/2024
127
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org .

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: April 12, 2024 Review Log #: 4245
Site Address: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
Lot/Tract/PM #: n/a Planning #: CDP 19-011
P6
Applicant/Contact: Justin Block, [email protected] BPC/GPC # Contact Phone #: 310-552-3336 Fax #: Planner: Adam Pisarkiewicz Project Type: New single-family residence, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS), swimming pool, spa, and retaining walls.

Submittal Information
Consultant(s)/Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (Ruberti, CEG 1708; Miller, GE 2257):
2-9-2024, 12-4-2023, 6-19-2023, 4-14-2022, 3-10-2021 (revised 5-17- 2021), 3-10-2021
GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (Van Meter, CEG 2031; Rana,RCE 70659):
6-24-2020, 4-10-2020, 9-26-2019, 6-14-2019, 1-17-2019
Ref: Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (Robinson, CEG 1902, GE 2491): 12-21-2018, 9-28-18
EPD Consultants (Poffenbarger, RCE 69089 ): 6-7-2023, 3-22-2022 6th Planning Submittal
Architectural Plans prepared by STUDY Architects dated October 27, 2023.

Structural plan (schematic foundation plan) prepared by Holmes Structures dated May 25, 2023.

Grading & Drainage Plans, 4 sheets, prepared by LC Engineering Group, Inc. dated February 14, 2024.

OWTS plans prepared by EPD Consultants dated May 25, 2023.

Landscape and Irrigation Plans prepared by Mark Tessier Landscape Architecture, Inc. dated February 6, 2024.

Landscape Impact on Bluff, Planting, Irrigation and
Evapotranspiration exhibit prepared by GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. dated November 14, 2023.

Plan corrections prepared by STUDY Architects dated September 29,2023.

Previous Reviews: 1-12-2024, 8-9-2023, 7-29-2022, 5-28-2021, Environmental Health Conformance Reviews dated 7-25-2023, 10-21-2020, 9-8-2020, 6-17- 2020, 2-6-2020, 7-2-2019, 3-15-2019, Geotechnical Review Referral Sheet dated 03-04-19.
128
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 2 –
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The proposed residential development is ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective, with the following comments to be addressed prior to building plan check stage completion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks
The referenced response geotechnical report, grading plans, Landscape and Irrigation Plans, and Landscape Impact on Bluff Exhibit were reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective. The revised project includes the construction of a new two-story 3,832 square foot single-family residence with an attached 2-car garage and a 1,291 square foot basement, a swimming pool, wood decks, flatwork, metal trellises, and retaining walls. Grading consists of 1,636 yards of R & R; 1,094 yards of cut and 1 yard of fill under structure; 97 yards of cut and 43 yards of fill non-exempt; and 1,147 yards of export. A new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) will be installed on the property that consists of a 2,500-gallon MicroSepTec Enviroserver ES7.5 treatment tank system with UV disinfection and two 6’ diameter x 37’ BI seepage pits with 8’ caps in the vicinity of borings P-3 and P-4 and 100% expansion (one 6’ diameter x 37’ BI seepage pit with an 8’ cap in the vicinity of boring P-2).

The residence is proposed on a relatively flat building pad surrounded by descending slopes to the south and east. The descending bluff slope to the south has surficially failed in the past. A similar surficial failure occurred on the adjacent site to the west at 33616 Pacific Coast Highway in 2011. That slope failure was remedially repaired. The descending slope south of the proposed building area does not meet the minimum requirements for factors of safety for gross rotational (deep-seated) and surficial mode of failure. Recommended mitigation measures include deepening the foundations of the residence to meet the required setback, covering the descending slope with wire mesh such as Geobrugg DELTAX or GREENAX, and installing a 3-foot-high impact wall at the toe of the descending slope. It is our 129
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 3 –
understanding from email correspondence with the previous case planner, Lilly Rudolph (email dated May 5, 2021), that the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable from a planning standpoint.

NOTE 1: The Project Landscape Architect and Geotechnical Consultant have performed a water balance study and prepared an exhibit showing that the landscaping supported by a drip irrigation system seaward of the swimming pool and deck, encroaching toward the bluff edge, will utilize 0.05 gallons per day per square foot. The Project Geotechnical Consultant concludes that, considering the low water usage, controlled irrigation and management, and mitigation measures including the drainage swale and the use of a wire mesh on the bluff face, that the landscaping and irrigation should not negatively impact the bluff. The geotechnical reviewers accept this conclusion and analyses at face value.

NOTE 2: The Project Geotechnical Consultant asserted that previous surficial erosion and failures within the bluff slope were mostly due to surface water runoff flow over the slope, and recommended installing a swale at the top of the bluff slope to intercept surface runoff and prevent water from flowing over the slope face; hence reducing the potential for surficial failure and erosion. However, the anticipated bluff retreat by the Project Geotechnical Consultant of 2 inches per year could potentially undermine the swale and accelerate the rate of erosion. As such, additional mitigation measures to redirect surficial run off away from the top of the slope (example:
rebuilding/relocating the swale, installing an auxiliary swale) may need to be considered to maintain the long-term positive drainage away from the face of the bluff slope (see Building Plan Check Comment below).

The previous residential development project was approved by the City’s consultants from a geotechnical perspective in a geotechnical review sheet dated May 28, 2021.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

1. Please submit a fee of $1,179.00 to City geotechnical staff for building plan check review.

2. The grading and drainage plan should address and include measures to maintain long-term drainage away from the top of the slope during the life span of the project.

3. When foundation plans become available, the Consultant needs to evaluate the potential for interaction between the basement/subterranean sidewalls and adjacent structures/foundations.

Mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary.

4. Please reference the current building codes on the cover sheet of the all sets of plans.

5. Please include a detail for the hydrostatic relief valve below the pool on the plans.

6. Section 7.4 of the City’s geotechnical guidelines requires a minimum thickness of 10 mils for vapor barriers beneath slabs-on-grade. Building plans shall reflect these requirements.

7. The following note needs to be included on the grading, swimming pool, and residence plans. ‘Prior to the placement of concrete slabs, the slab subgrade soils shall be pre-moistened to at least 120% of the optimum moisture content to the depth specified by the geotechnical engineer. The premoistened soils should be tested and verified by the geotechnical engineer within one day prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and sand.’

8. One set of final electronic grading, retaining wall, slope mitigation, swimming pool and spa, and residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant's recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and estamped and e-signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Civil/Geotechnical Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants' recommendations and items in this review sheet. 130
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 4 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to the City’s geotechnical consultants listed below.

Engineering Geology Review by: 4-12-2024
Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-30-24 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (408-656-3210)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by: _______________________________ 4-12-2024 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-25 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.

131
City of Malibu
.
– GEOTECHNICAL –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. A comprehensive Site Drainage Plan,
incorporating the Project Geotechnical
Consultant’s recommendations, shall be
included in the Plans. Show all area drains,
outlets, and non-erosive drainage devices on the
Plans. Water shall not be allowed to flow
uncontrolled over descending slopes.

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

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

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

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

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence
require separate permits. Contact the Building
and Safety Department for permit information.

One set of retaining wall plans shall be
submitted to the City for review by City
geotechnical staff. Additional concerns may be
raised at that time which may require a response
by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and
applicant.
132
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org .

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: August 13, 2024 Review Log #: 4245
Site Address: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
Lot/Tract/PM #: n/a Planning #: CDP 19-011
P7
Applicant/Contact: Justin Block, [email protected] BPC/GPC # Contact Phone #: 310-552-3336 Fax #: Planner: Richard
Greenbauer
Project Type: Revision: removal of the south edge of the wood deck and stairs to north of the bluff setback line: New single-family residence, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS), swimming pool, spa, and retaining walls.

Submittal Information
Consultant(s)/Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (Ruberti, CEG 1708; Miller, GE 2257):
7-2-2024, 2-9-2024, 12-4-2023, 6-19-2023, 4-14-2022, 3-10-2021 (revised 5-17-2021), 3-10-2021
GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (Van Meter, CEG 2031; Rana,RCE 70659):
6-24-2020, 4-10-2020, 9-26-2019, 6-14-2019, 1-17-2019
Ref: Stratum Geotechnical Consultants (Robinson, CEG 1902, GE 2491): 12-21-2018, 9-28-18
EPD Consultants (Poffenbarger, RCE 69089 ): 6-7-2023, 3-22-2022 7th Planning Submittal
Architectural Plans prepared by STUDY Architects dated July 3, 2024.

Structural plan (schematic foundation plan) prepared by Holmes Structures dated May 25, 2023.

Grading & Drainage Plans, 4 sheets, prepared by LC Engineering Group, Inc. plotted June 25, 2024.

OWTS plans prepared by EPD Consultants dated May 25, 2023.

Landscape and Irrigation Plans prepared by Mark Tessier Landscape Architecture, Inc. dated July 3, 2024.

Landscape Impact on Bluff, Planting, Irrigation and Evapotranspiration exhibit prepared by GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. dated November 14, 2023.

Plan corrections prepared by STUDY Architects dated September 29,2023.

Previous Reviews: 4-12-2024, 1-12-2024, 8-9-2023, 7-29-2022, 5-28-2021, Environmental Health Conformance Reviews dated 7-25-2023, 10-21-2020, 9-8-2020, 6-17-2020, 2-6-2020, 7-2-2019, 3-15-2019, Geotechnical Review Referral Sheet dated 03-04-19.
133
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 2 –
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The proposed residential development is ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective, with the following comments to be addressed prior to building plan check stage completion.

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks
The referenced revised grading and drainage plan review report by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, and revised architectural plans, grading and drainage plans, and landscape and irrigation plans were reviewed by the City’s consultants from a geotechnical perspective. This review is for the removal of a portion of the southern edge of the wood deck and stairs south of the residence that extend south of the bluff setback line so that the entire deck and stairs are sited north of the bluff setback line.

The project includes the construction of a new two-story 3,832 square foot single-family residence with an attached 2-car garage and a 1,291 square foot basement, a swimming pool, wood decks, flatwork, metal trellises, and retaining walls. Grading consists of 1,636 yards of R & R; 1,094 yards of cut and 1 yard of fill under structure; 97 yards of cut and 43 yards of fill non-exempt; and 1,147 yards of export. A new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) will be installed on the property that consists of a 2,500-gallon MicroSepTec Enviroserver ES7.5 treatment tank system with UV disinfection and two 6’ diameter x 37’ BI seepage pits with 8’ caps in the vicinity of borings P-3 and P-4 and 100% expansion (one 6’ diameter x 37’ BI seepage pit with an 8’ cap in the vicinity of boring P-2).

The residence is proposed on a relatively flat building pad surrounded by descending slopes to the south and east. The descending bluff slope to the south has surficially failed in the past. A similar surficial failure occurred on the adjacent site to the west at 33616 Pacific Coast Highway in 2011. That slope failure was remedially repaired. The descending slope south of the proposed building area does not meet the minimum requirements for factors of safety for gross rotational (deep-seated) and surficial mode of 134
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 3 –
failure. Recommended mitigation measures include deepening the foundations of the residence to meet the required setback, covering the descending slope with wire mesh such as Geobrugg DELTAX or GREENAX, and installing a 3-foot-high impact wall at the toe of the descending slope. It is our understanding from email correspondence with the previous case planner, Lilly Rudolph (email dated May 5, 2021), that the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable from a planning standpoint.

The previous residential development project was approved by the City’s consultants from a geotechnical perspective in a geotechnical review sheet dated May 28, 2021.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

1. Please submit a fee of $1,179.00 to City geotechnical staff for building plan check review.

2. The grading and drainage plan should address and include measures to maintain long-term drainage away from the top of the slope during the life span of the project.

3. When foundation plans become available, the Consultant needs to evaluate the potential for interaction between the basement/subterranean sidewalls and adjacent structures/foundations.

Mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary.

4. Please reference the current building codes on the cover sheet of the all sets of plans.

5. Please include a detail for the hydrostatic relief valve below the pool on the plans.

6. Section 7.4 of the City’s geotechnical guidelines requires a minimum thickness of 10 mils for vapor barriers beneath slabs-on-grade. Building plans shall reflect these requirements.

8. One set of final electronic grading, retaining wall, slope mitigation, swimming pool and spa, and residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant's recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and estamped and e-signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Civil/Geotechnical 135
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL5279) – 4 –
Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants' recommendations and items in this review sheet.

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

Engineering Geology Review by: 8-13-2024
Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-30-24 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (408-656-3210)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by: _______________________________ 8-13-2024 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-25 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.

136
City of Malibu
.
– GEOTECHNICAL –

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

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

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

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

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

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

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

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

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

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence
require separate permits. Contact the Building
and Safety Department for permit information.

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

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

TO:

City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
REVISED DATE 05/10/2022
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Justin Block, Block and Block
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 1880 Century Park East
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310) 552-3336
APPLICANT FAX #: (310) 552-1850
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NSFR, NOWTS, pool, spa, retaining wall Los Angeles, CA 90067
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 19-011
JOB ADDRESS: 33610 PACIFIC COAST HWY
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.

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

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
X
6/13/22
138
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/33610 PCH/CDP 19-011/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/2nd Submittal/33610 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 19-011 COA.doc Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Julie Santia, Associate Engineer
Date: June 13, 2022
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 33610 Pacific Coast Hwy, CDP 19-011 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.

Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained.

Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

1. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
• Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
• Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
• Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources

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

3. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
139
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/33610 PCH/CDP 19- 011/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/2nd Submittal/33610 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 19-011 COA.doc Recycled Paper
• Public Works Department General Notes
• The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks). • The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated.
• The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan.
• If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
• If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
• Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
• Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

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

STORMWATER

5. The ocean between Latigo Point and the West City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation allows discharge of storm water only where it is essential for flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
• Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These 140
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/33610 PCH/CDP 19- 011/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/2nd Submittal/33610 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 19-011 COA.doc Recycled Paper
pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
• Prohibits the discharge of trash.
• Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading).
• Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

6. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:

Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

7. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). 141
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/33610 PCH/CDP 19- 011/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/2nd Submittal/33610 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 19-011 COA.doc Recycled Paper
The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.

8. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage of the site. The WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
• Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
• Source Control BMP’s
• Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site. • Drainage Improvements
• A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
• A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
• The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works Department and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and or building plans.

The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. A copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.

MISCELLANOUS

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

10.The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
142
5 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/33610 PCH/CDP 19- 011/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/2nd Submittal/33610 Pacific Coast Hwy_CDP 19-011 COA.doc Recycled Paper
• The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
• There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and • The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
143
DEC 18 2023
144
ATTACHMENT 4
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 2, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference, for the project identified below.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-011, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 24-022, AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 24-006 - An application to construct a new 3,977 square foot, two-story single-family residence with attached two-car garage, basement, pool, retaining wall, landscaping, hardscape, and new onsite wastewater treatment system; including a site plan review for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet in height for a pitched roof, and a minor modification to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 33610 Pacific Coast Hwy / 4473-021-012 / Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) APPLICANT / OWNER: Block and Block / Peaches LLC
APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a), 15303(e), and 15304(b) APPLICATION FILED: March 4, 2019
CASE PLANNER: Richard Greenbauer, Contract Planner, [email protected] (949) 489-1442, ext. 132
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project, typically 10 days before the hearing in the Agenda Center: http://www.malibucity.org/agendacenter. Related documents are available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. You will have an opportunity to testify at the public hearing; written comments which shall be considered public record, may be submitted any time prior to the beginning of the public hearing.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council.

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

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.

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

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

MAUREEN TAMURI, Interim Planning Director Date: November 7, 2024 ATTACHMENT 5
154

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-77

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-011 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,977.5 SQUARE FOOT, 28 FOOT HIGH TWO— STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH BASEMENT, POOL, SPA, RETAINING WALLS, NEW ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT; INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 24-022 FOR CONSTRUCTION OVER 18 FEET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 28 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR A PITCHED ROOF AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 24-006 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BY 50 PERCENT, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO-ACRE (RR-2) ZONING DISTRICT AT 33610 PACIFIC

COAST HIGHWAY (PEACHES LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City 0f Malibu does hareby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION l. Recitals.

A. On March 4, 2019, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19- 01 l, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 24-022, and Minor Modification (MM) No. 24-006 was submitted to the Planning Department by the applicant, Block and Block, on behalf ofthe property owner, Peaches LLC DBA. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers, City Public Works Department, Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for rev1ew.

B. On July 24, 2024, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application on the subject property and staff deemed the CDP application complete for processing.

C. On October 24, 2024, story poles representing the location and height of the new 2—story single-family residence were installed.

D. On November 8, 2024, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area and to determine potential visual impacts of the proposed project on any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area.

E. On November 7, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500—foot radius of the subject property.

F. On December 2, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. 155
Resolution NO 24—77

Page 2 of 22 ends

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that this proj ect is listed among the classes of proj ects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proj ect is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (a) and (e) New Construction ~ and Section 15304(b) — Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the proj ect and the hearing on December 2, 2024, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 19-011 for the construction of a new 3,977.5 square foot, 28 foot high two-story single-family home with basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), and associated development; including SPR No. 24-022 for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet in height for a pitched roof and MM No. 24—006 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent, for a property located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 33610 Pacific Coast Highway (Peaches LLC).

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-2 zoning district, an area designated for rural residential uses. A single-family residence and associated development components are permitted uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Geotechnical Reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis, and site investigations, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP and MMC in that it meets all applicable residential development standards with the inclusion of the requested SPR and MM.

2. The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, the proposed proj ect and related construction activities are not anticipated to interfere with the public’ s right to access the coast as the site offers no direct or indirect public beach access. The proposed development of this property would be located atop a coastal bluff and inland canyon bluff. The upper three-fourths ofthe property is flatter than 5 :1 and gently slopes from Pacific Coast Highway seaward to the south and east and then steeply descends, varying from 2 1/2:1 or steeper for approximately 40 feet to the private access road to the south. The property is not subject to direct wave action but has been determined by the CCC and confirmed by the City of Malibu’s Coastal 156
Resolution NO 24—77

Page 3 of 22 ends

Engineer that the steep slope to the south is a coastal bluff subj ect to Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) coastal bluff policies and standards. Adequate public access exists nearby, as the closest Park Lands t0 the Site are El Sol County Beach approximately 0.3 miles to the east and Nicolas Canyon County Beach approximately 0.6 miles to the west. As such, no potential project-related or cumulative impact on public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 are anticipated.

3. The proposed project meets the development policies of the LCP and MMC, with the inclusion of the SPR and MM, and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging alternative and would actually provide for environmental enhancements by correcting historical issues on the sites slopes and developing site improvements that mitigate storm water flow across the site and minimizes erosion and sediment transport off-site.

B. Site Plan Review for Construction in Excess 0f 18 Feet in Height (LIP Section 13.275)

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with all relevant policies and provisions of the LCP. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis, and a detailed site investigation, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC, inclusive of the SPR and MM.

2. Story poles were installed in October of 2024. Staff visited the project site in November 2024, photo-documented the story poles, and evaluated the project for conformance with City codes. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are predominantly developed with two-story single-family residences and accessory structures such as second units, detached garages, and swimming pools. The proposed grading will result in a lower finished grade which will decrease the building profile when viewed from PCH. Furthermore, as noted in Section A Finding 3, the proposed TDSF is considerably smaller than the adjacent property to the west and surrounding properties beyond, and will not adversely affect the neighborhood character with the proposed scale of development. Based on the existing development pattem in the area, the proposed project is expected to blend with the surrounding built environment. Based on the surrounding topography and existing development, the proposed project will blend with the surrounding built environment and will not have an adverse effect on neighborhood character. The neighboring properties are developed with one- and two—story single-family residences. Therefore, the project is similar in height and scale to other buildings in the same neighborhood.

3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by Chapter 6 of the Malibu LIP. The site is constrained by geological landslide areas, an irregular lot configuration, and the presence of coastal and canyon bluffs. Because the development cannot be sited completely below road grade to ensure the maximum protection of ocean views, the development proposes a view corridor double the size required by LIP Section 6.5 and will provide public visibility through the site as seen from PCH, a designated scenic roadway. The project is not expected to have significant impacts to scenic vistas and provides the maximum feasible protection to significant public views as required by LIP Chapter 6.

4. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 1, the project complies with all applicable requirements ofthe LCP. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers, LACFD and WD29 reviewed the proposed project and determined it was in conformance with the LCP and other State and local 157
Resolution No 24—77

Page 4 ends

requirements. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Building Safety Division will plan check the grading plans and structural plans for the residence and other improvements to verify conformance with State and local law. Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies.

5. The proposed project, as designed, is consistent with the applicable land use designation, is consistent with all applicable development and design standards of the LCP and goals and policies of the General Plan because the project is located in an area that has been identified for residential use and the proposed residence incorporates siting and design measures to minimize visual impacts and landform alteration.

6. Based on the Visual impact analysis (aerial photographs, site Visits and story pole placement), staff has determined that the portions of the project above 18 feet in height are not expected to obstruct Visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, off—shore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(l7). No nearby property owners have requested a primary View determination in response to the courtesy notice or story pole installation.

C. Minor Modification for a reduced front yard setback (LIP Section 13.27) l. The project is consistent with the policies of the Malibu LCP in that the project has been reviewed and analyzed for conformance with the LCP. The project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the LCP and MMC. The project, with the inclusion of the requested MM, as designed and conditioned, conforms to all applicable LCP policies and provisions. A reduction in the front yard setback is needed to avoid construction on slopes 4 to l and steeper and that provides the required bluff retreat setback from the Coastal Bluff located on the southern portion ofthe site.

2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood character. As previously stated in Section B, Finding 2, story poles were placed on the site to demonstrate the project’s potential for View impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed project consists of a new 3,977.5 square foot two~story single—family residence with a footprint of 2,636 square feet, pool, 8,761 square feet of landscaping, and associated development. The proj ect site’s size coupled with geologic constraints and bluff setback requirements limits the ability to develop the site in any other manner than what is being proposed. The proj ect’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character. Additionally, the proposed TDSF is considerably smaller than the adjacent property to the west and surrounding properties beyond and will not adversely affect the neighborhood character with the proposed scale of development. The proposed structure complies with the residential development standards of the LCP and MMC, consistent with the RR—2 zoning designation, with the inclusion of the MM and SPR request. The building is designed and sited in a manner that allows for visual access to the ocean through creation of a View corridor, while allowing development of the highly constrained site. As stated earlier, the lot size, View corridor requirement, and seismic hazard area located along the southern portion ofthe property limit where development can be sited. Based on conformance with development standards, inclusive of the MM and SPR, along with proj ect conditions for building, driveway, and wall materials and colors, 158
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 5 ends

proposed site and building design characteristics, the surrounding topography, and surrounding existing development, the project is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character.

3. The proposed project complies With all applicable requirements of State and local law, in that the proj ect 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.

The City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Departmenta WD29, and LACFD reviewed the proposed proj ect and determined it was in conformance with State and local requirements. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Building Safety Division will plan check the grading plans and structural plans for the residence and other improvements to verify conformance with State and local law.

Construction of the proposed improvements will comply with all building code requirements and will incorporate all recommendations from applicable City and County agencies. Therefore, the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

D. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) l. The proposed proj ect is a new two-story single—family residence on a vacant parcel currently developed with an existing single—family residence, in a neighborhood developed with single-family residences. As proposed, the project complies with the non—beachfront residential standards. Based on a staff site visit and analysis it was determined that due to the lot location, dimensions, and topography, there is no feasible alternative building site where the development would be obscured from view from a scenic area. The proposed project has been designed to provide a view corridor of 16 feet, 7 inches, which is approximately 42 percent ofthe lot’s frontage and more than twice the required width. LIP chapter 6 requires a view corridor of 2O percent of the lot frontage to ensure that the proposed development would not obstruct views to the ocean from PCH. Additionally, the proposed landscaping and pedestrian walkway along the west side of the project will not be visible from the scenic road; therefore, the proposed project has been determined not have a significant adverse scenic or visual impact as seen from PCH.

2. The project as conditioned will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The project has been conditioned to include limitations on lighting and colors of the materials used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas.

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

4. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. As discussed in Findings 1, 2, and 4 above, the proj ect as proposed and conditioned, would not have significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources, nor eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.
159
Resolution No 24—77

Page 6 of 22 ends

E. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The project will not increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or tire hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

2. The project, as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department, does not pose any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or fire hazards due to the project design. 9 by the City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD. These specialists and agencies determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity, nor increase the fire hazard beyond what exist today and will actually correct existing surficial erosion through the development of the site.

5. The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have adverse impacts on sensitive resources.

F. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)

1. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 2, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with public access to the ocean. The proposed development and related construction activities are at least 50 feet from the bluff edge and beach access is available at E1 Sol County Beach, located approximately 0.3 miles to the east and Nicolas Canyon County Beach, located approximately 0.6 miles to the west. No development is proposed on or near the shoreline sand supply or other resources as the development finished floor elevation (approximately 125 feet above sea level) will be 50 feet landward of the bluff edge. The proposed development complies with the reduced 50-foot setback from the coastal bluff edge pursuant to LIP 10.4(D) and the 25-foot setback from the canyon bluff pursuant to MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(6)(e) as the static factor of safety is greater than 1.5.

2. The project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with LIP Section 10.4.D.1 and LIP Section 10.4.H and will not have significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources.

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

4. As previously stated, the proposed project as designed, conditioned, and approved by City staff, the project will not have any significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 160
Resolution No 24—77

Page 7 of 22 ends

sand supply, or other resources.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 19—01 l, SPR No. 24-022 and MM No. 24-006, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
l. 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.

Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:

Construction
a. New 3,977.5 square foot, two—story single-family residence with a 1,291 square foot basement;
Decks and outdoor shower;
Swimming pool and spa;
Grading
Landscaping and hardscape;
New driveway and associated retaining walls; and
OQWGQOO‘‘ New OWTS;
Discretionary Request
The proposed project includes the following discretionary requests:
a. SPR No. 24-022 for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum height of 28 feet for a pitched roof.
b. MM No.24-006 for a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped July 8., 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.
161
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 8 of 22 ends

Pursuant to LIP Section 13. 1 8.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

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.

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 0r withdrawn by the appellant.

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

All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the coastal development permit approved by the City is void. ll. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition. l2. The property owner shall comply with all provisions of the MMC and LIP.

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the 162
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 9 of 22 ends

Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. l4. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Lighting

15. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60- watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens; e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited. l6. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

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

18. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. High intensity lighting of the shore is prohibited. l9. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

21. Three violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site. 163
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 10 ends

22. Up—lighting 0f landscaping is prohibited.

Fencing/VValls/Screening

23. Any abova—ground equipment shall be screened from View by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A).

24. The applicant shall include an elevation of the proposed electronic driveway gate on the architectural plans that are submitted for building plan check. The gate and all fencing along the front property line shall comply with the regulations set forth in LIP Section 3.5.

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

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

Construction / Framing

27. The applicant/property owner 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.

28. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with CalGreen) of all construction waste from the landfill.

29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall confirm with the City Building Official if a Los Angeles County Fire Department compliant second egress point from the basement will be required and shall update plans accordingly should that be required.

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

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

32. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.
164
Resolution No 24—77

Page 11 ends

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

34. 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 l7, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October). c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the proj ect site.

35. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the highest roof member elevation, lowest finish floor elevation and elevation of centerline of Pacific Coast Highway. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Department for review and sign off on framing.

36. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized—transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.

Biology/Landscaping

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

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non—chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

38. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division. 165
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

41. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, ifyour property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

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

43. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary View from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). The planting plan must adhere to the View corridor requirements for the property.

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

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

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

47. Slope planting measures such as contour planting and terracing or other techniques shall be incorporated on slopes to interrupt the flow and rate of surface runoff in order to prevent surface soil erosion.

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

49. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by 166
Resolution NO 24—77

Page 13 ends

a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

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

Fire Department/Fuel Modification

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

52. The proj ect is required to have an interior automatic sprinkler system.

Public Works

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

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

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

55. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project: a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by 167
Resolution No 24-77

Page 14 ends

grading €quipment beyond the limits 0f grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan as required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for rill slopes; and
g. Public storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

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

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

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
168
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 15 of 22 ends

Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
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.

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

60. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifles all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design BMPs:
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must bioflltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring ofthe proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site proj ect impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep 169
Resolution No 24-77

Page 16 of 22 ends

a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Office ofthe Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Geology

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

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

Swimming Pool / Spa / Mechanical Equipment

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

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

3.5.3(A).

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

66. 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).

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

68. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section l3.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
170
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 17 of 22 ends

Environmental Health

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

70. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the OWTS. All plans and reports must be signed by a City Registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by the proj ect Geologist, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).

71. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effiuent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The proj ected subsurface effiuent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot 171
Resolution No 24—77

Page 18 of 22 ends

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

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

72. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subj ect property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

73. Operations & Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed advanced OWTS.

74. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subj ect property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

75. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subj ect property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

76. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

77. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical staff final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

78. City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City ofMalibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

79. City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
172
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 19 of 22 ends

80. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A flnal fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specifications.

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

82. Prior to the issuance ofa building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s Onsite Wastewater Treatment regulations including provisions of LIP Section 18.9 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of onsite facilities.

83. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan shall be submitted showing an AOWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the Malibu Plumbing Code (MPC) and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The AOWTS plot plan shall Show essential features of the AOWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17—inch sheet leaving a flve—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).

84. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then a final design and system specifications shall be submitted as to all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, fiow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final design drawings and calculations must be signed by a California registered civil engineer, a registered environmental health specialist or a professional geologist who is responsible for the design. The designer must also be a registered OWTS designer with the City ofMalibu. The final OWTS design report and drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

Water Service

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

Prior to Occupancy

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

Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall 173
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 20 of 22 ends

designate the specific materials that were land fllled or recycled and state the facilities Where all materials were taken.

87. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion ofthe Flaming 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.

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

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

View Corridor

90. No landscaping on the east side of the property shall be more than six feet high for the first 100 feet from the Pacific Coast Highway boundary.

91. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) and in order to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources, the applicant is required to maintain:
a. A View corridor a minimum of 16 feet 7 inches adjacent to the western property line extending the length of the property. b. No portion of any structure shall extend into the view corridor above the elevation of the adj acent street.
c. Any fencing across the view corridor shall be permanently maintained as visually permeable. Tinted or frosted glass, and louvered or slatted screen fences are not permitted. d. Any landscaping in this area shall include only low-growing species that will not obscure or block bluewater views.
e. If at any time the property owner allows the view corridor to become impaired or blocked, it would constitute a violation of the coastal development permit and the Coastal Act and be subject to all civil and criminal remedies.

Fixed Conditions

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

93. 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. 174
Resolution NO 24-77

Page 21 of 22 ends

Deed Restrictions
The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out ofthe 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 Department approval.

94. 95. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 15-22.

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

The property owner is required to acknowledge, 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 assumes said risks and 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 Department approval.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2“d day of December, 2024.

ATTEST:

ML, 9W
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section I3.20.l (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246. 175
Resolution No 24—77

Page 22 ends

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL — An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within lO working days ofthe issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling (805) 585—1 800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24—77 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 2nd day ofDecember 2024 by the following vote:

Wt? REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
AYES: 4 Commissioners: Mazza, Peak, Smith, Leonard
NOES: 1 Commissioner: Hill
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
176
Agenda Item: 5.A
CDP No. 19-011 Malibu, California
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
177
Location Map
Project LocationThe project site is located over looking Watkins Cove on the Encinal Bluffs on the southwest side of PCH, approximatley a half mile west of Decker Edison Road. 02 PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011
178
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 03

AERIAL VIEW OF PROJECT
SITE

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
179

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ؙ Two Story, 28'-0" High SFRؙ 3,983 Square Foot SFR with 1,291 Square Foot Basement ؙ View Corridor Equal to 42% of PCH Frontage (code required 20%)ؙ AOWTSؙ Swimming Poolؙ Landscaping | Hardscape | Outdoor Lighting | New Entry Gateؙ Grading | Site Wallsؙ Swale | Wire Mesh | 3' Impact Wall at Toe of Slope to Protect Private Driveway & Existing Residences
Discretionary Approvals
ؙ SPR | Height in Excess of 18' -0"ؙ Minor Modification | Reduce FYSB by 50% 04 PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011
Coastal Development Permit for a New:
180

PROJECT COMPONENTS
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 05
181
•PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS UNUSUAL MAKE MINOR MODIFICATION NECESSARY •THE HOUSE SETBACK CONFORMS TO CODE WITHOUT REDUCTION PROPOSED WITH

MINOR MODIFICATION
•OPEN AIR TRELLIS OVER FRONT WALKWAY IS ONLY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN

MINOR MODIFICATION AREA
•MASSING OF PROPOSED SFR & TRELLIS LINES UP WITH MASSING OF SFR ON

ADJACENT PROPERTIES
•MINOR MODIFICATION FINDINGS MADE IN AFFIRMATIVE

MINOR MODIFICATION - FRONT YARD SETBACK
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 06
182
SITE PLAN REVIEW - 28' - 0" HIGH PITCHED ROOF
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 07
•AREA OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE GREATER THAN 18' - 0" DOES NOT OBSTRUCT A PRIMARY VIEW. ONLY 1 OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES LANDWARD OF PCH & WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A PVD OF RECORD. THAT PROPERTY’S PRIMARY VIEW IS TO THE SOUTH / SOUTH - EAST AND NOT IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY •BLUE WATER / HORIZON LINE AS MEASURED FROM PCH WOULD BE OBSTRUCTED WITH AN 18' - 0"

STRUCTURE
•HEIGHT OF PROPSOED RESIDENCE CONSISTENT WITH SIMILARLY SITUATED NEIGHORING PROPERTIES ON PCH
•SPR FINDINGS MADE IN AFFIRMATIVE
183
•AS STATED ABOVE, AREA OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE GREATER THAN 18' - 0" ( ) DOES NOT OBSTRUCT A PRIMARY VIEW. ONLY 1 OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES LANWARD OF PCH WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A PVD OF RECORD ( = PROPERTY WITIN 1000' | = PROPERTY WITH PVD OF RECORD. THAT PROPERTY’S PRIMARY VIEW IS TO THE SOUTH / SOUTH - EAST AND NOT IN THE DIRECTION OF

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SITE PLAN REVIEW | SURROUNDING PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 08
184
ANALYZING NEIGHBOR CONCERN AT 33572 PCH
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 09
185

VIEW CORRIDOR
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 10
•PROJECT COMPLIES WITH LIP SECTION 6.5(E)(2) WHERE

THE DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE SITED / DESIGNED BELOW

ROAD GRADE SO WE ARE PROPOSING A VIEW CORRIDOR
•VIEW CORRIDOR WIDTH = 16' - 7"
ؙ SUBJECT PROPERTY’S FRONTAGE ALONG PCH = 39' - 4"ؙ VIEW CORRIDOR PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FRONTAGE = 42% (CODE REQUIRED 20%)
•ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN VIEW CORRIDOR ARE EITHER

VISUALLY PERMEABLE AND / OR BELOW ROAD GRADE

ELEVATION AS THE SITE DECENDS FROM PCH TOWARDS OCEAN
•NO UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES WITHIN VIEW

CORRIDOR
186

BLUFF TOP DEVELOPMENT
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 11 •TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINED BY PLANNING STAFF •all development associated with sfr setback behind: ؙ 50' - 0" bluff top setback line; and ؙ 1.5 Factor of Safety line + Bluff retreat line 187
SLOPE
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011 12
•SLOPE FAILURE OCCURED IN LATE
2010 / EARLY 2011 FOLLOWING HEAVY RAINS. CITY ISSUED CDP NO. 12 - 042 FOR SLOPE REPAIR.
•MORE RECENTLY, AFTER HEAVY

RAINS SURFACE WATER FLOWED OVER TOP OF SLOPE CAUSING

ADDITIONAL EROSION TO THE TOP
OF SLOPE & SLOPE FACE. THE

EROSION OF THE SLOPE CAUSED
DEBRIS TO FALL AND BLOCK THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD BELOW. •PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES A

NEW GEOGRID ON FAILURE AREAS

OF SLOPE & AREAS THAT HAVE

BEEN SUBJECT TO REPEATED
EROSION; A 3' - 0' IMPACT WALL IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS AT THE TOE

OF THE SLOPE TO SAFEGUARD THE

PRIVATE ROAD & EXISTING
RESIDENCES BELOW.
•A NEW DRAINAGE SWALE IS ALSO

BEING PROPOSED AT TOP OF THE

SLOPE TO CAPTURE WATER AND PREVENT SURFACE WATER FROM

FLOWING OVER THE SLOPE FACE

CAUSING INSTABILITY AND / OR

EROSION WHICH COULD CAUSE DEBRIS TO FALL ON PRIVATE
ACCESS ROAD.
188

LANDSCAPING
PEACHES LLC | CDP N0. 19 - 011
13 •INSTALLATION OF 8,761 OF NEW DROUGHT - TOLERANT SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING | ALL PLANTING ADHERES TO LACFD FUEL MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS •NEW DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER BASED CONTROLLER•PERMEABLE STONE COBBLE DRIVEYWAY | CONCRETE AND PERMEABLE GRAVEL

GARDEN WALKING PATHS
•LANDSCAPE LIGHTING COMPLIES WITH DARK SKY ORDINANCE •APPROVED BY CITY BIOLOGIST | MEETS THE CITY’S LANDSCAPE WATER

CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
189

STAFF REPOT
PAGE 1
Staff Recommendation Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-77, determining the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, and approving CDP No. 19 -0 11 for the construction of a new 3,977.5 square foot, two-story 28 -foot -high single-family residence with a basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, new OWTS, and associated development; including SPR No. 24 -022 and MM No. 24 -006 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent for a property located in the RR-2 zoning district located at 33610 PCH. 14 APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE

COMMISSION CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE CDP WITH THE REVISED

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
190
1 Planning Commission
From: Richard Greenbauer <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Raneika Brooks; Justin Block, Block & Block; Jason Ernst; Rebecca Evans; Maureen Tamuri
Subject: PC Agenda Item 5.A. Email Correspondence RE: 33610 PCH – CDP 19-011 Good evening,
Attached is correspondence received for item 5.A. on the agenda of the upcoming City of Malibu Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 2, 2024.  33610 PCH – CDP 19-011
From: Charmaine Mark < >
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Richard Greenbauer <[email protected]>
Cc: ; Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Richard,
Please submit our comment to the planning commission regarding the height of 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu. As far as we know, we are the only neighbor with a view of 33610. It is close to the property line. We signed off on a variance for the first structure, but are against this new development. The previous owner wasn't looking into our backyard.

Respectfully,
Richard Greenbauer, Contract Consultant
(949) 489-1442, ext. 132 or via email at [email protected]. 191
1 Planning Commission
From: Richard Greenbauer <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 2:42 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Raneika Brooks; Rebecca Evans
Subject: PC Agenda Item 5.A. CDP19-011 - Fw: Another Letter of Support for our Project Attachments: Letter_of_Support_33604 PCH LLC.pdf
Please find attached a letter of support for the subject project that was received today 12/2/2024 Respectfully,

Richard Greenbauer, Contract Consultant

(949) 489-1442, ext. 132 or via email at [email protected].

From: Justin Block < >
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 1:32 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; Richard Greenbauer <[email protected]> Subject: Another Letter of Support for our Project

Please see the letter attached from the Manager of the LLC that owns the property at 33604 PCH which is located immediately below our property.

Justin
192
December 1, 2024
Re: CDP No. 19-011 | 33610 PCH
Mr. Greenbauer:

I am the beneficial owner of the property located at 33604 PCH. We have been provided the project plans by the applicant and after our review want to offer our support for CDP No. 19-011 and the project located at 33610 PCH.

Thank you,
33604 PCH, LLC
193

CIRCLE THREE
November 22, 2024
RE: CDP No. 19-011 | 33610 PCH
Mr. Greenbauer:

We are the manager of the entity that owns the property located at 33602 Pacific Coast Highway.

We have been provided the project plans by the applicant and after our review, we want to offer our support for CDP No. 19-011 and the project located at 33610 Pacific Coast Highway.

Sincerely,
Authorized Individual, Circle Three Management, LLC
Manager of Pacific Wave LLC
Sarah Coyne
Docusign Envelope ID: E7231E53-FCDF-441C-A1EE-D76CEA925A45 194
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
Coastal Development Permit 19-011
Site Plan Review 24-022
Minor Modification No. 24-006
December 02, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting
Item No. 5.A.
195
Project History
• September 17, 2012 – PC Approved CDP No. 12-042 and Site Plan Review No. 12-037 - for grading to re-establish original site contours following work that took place without the benefit of permits and a slope repair consisting of a 1.3 to 1 geogrid-reinforced compacted fill slope and landscaping for erosion control on the vacant parcel. • March 4, 2019 – CDP No. 19-011 was submitted to the City requesting approval to develop the site with a new 3,977 square foot, 28’-0” high two- story single-family home with basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, OWTS, and associated development. • April 17, 2024 – Malibu Public Works Approved COC No. 21-007 and was sent to the City Clerk for recordation as a legally created lot 196
Vicinity Map
197
Current Site Conditions
198
Current Site Conditions
199
Proposed Project
• 3,977 square foot, two-story single-family residence;• 1,291 square foot basement; • 2 car attached garage;• Outdoor decks and outdoor shower;• Swimming pool, spa, and associated equipment;• New OWTS;• Landscaping and hardscaping; • Grading and retaining walls. 200
Discretionary Request
• Site Plan Review No. 24-022 to exceed the height of the SFR over 18 feet, up to 28 feet.
• Minor Modification No. 24-006 to reduce the front yard setback by no more than 50 percent.

Front Yard Setback
Allowed/Required Proposed
40 feet, 6 inches 20 feet, 3 inches
201
Site Plan
202
Site Plan
W/ Setbacks
203
Historical
Aerial
204
Story Pole
Photo of
South View
from PCH
205
Story Pole
Photo of
View Corridor
206
Front and Rear Elevations
207
Correspondence
• November 22, 2024: Correspondence in support of the project was received by staff from the manager of the entity that owns the property located at 33602 Pacific Coast Highway. • November 25, 2024: Email Correspondence from Charmaine and Matthew Marks (neighbors to the east) concerned with the height of the project was received and an application for a PVD was submitted.• December 2, 2024: Correspondence in support from the beneficial owner of the property located at 33604 PCH. We have been provided the project plans by the applicant and after our review want to offer our support for CDP No. 19-011 and the project located at 33610 PCH. 33604 PCH, LLC 208
PVD Analysis Marks
Residence
209
PVD Analysis
PVD
Photos
from
Marks
Residence
W/
Story
Poles
210
PC Resolution Revisions

90. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(1)(e) and in order to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources, the project is conditioned as follows:
a. Structures shall extend no higher than the road grade of PCH adjacent to the project site in the area of the View Corridor.
b. Fences shall be located away from the road edge and fences or walls shall be no higher than adjacent road grade of PCH, with the exception of fences that are composed of visually permeable design and material.
c. The project site shall be landscaped with native vegetation types that have a maximum growth height at maturity and are located such that landscaping will not extend above PCH road grade. d. Existing vegetation shall be removed, or trimmed and maintained in perpetuity so as not to extend above the adjacent road elevation of PCH.

91. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(2)(e) and in order to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources, the applicant is required to maintain:
211
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-77 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-011, Site Plan Review 24-022, and Minor Modification No. 24-006.
212
33610 Pacific Coast Highway
Coastal Development Permit – No. 19-011
Site Plan Review – No. 24-022
Minor Modification - No. 24-006
December 2, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting
Item No. 5.A.
213
PVD Analysis
PVD
Photos
from
Outside
Marks
Residence
W/
Story
Poles
214
PVD Analysis
East
Elevation
W/
Location
of
Window
215
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. ∙ Malibu, California ∙ 90265-4816 Phone (310) 456-2489 ∙ Fax (310) 456-7650 ∙ www.malibucity.org

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 PRIMARY VIEW DETERMINATION
Primary View Determination No. PVD 24-031
33572 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
December 6, 2024
On December 2, 2024, staff conducted a primary view determination at 33572 Pacific Coast Highway in response to a project located at 33610 Pacific Coast Highway. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR-2) and is developed with a single-family residence. The site is denoted by the red star in the neighborhood map below (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1: Neighborhood map showing 33572 Pacific Coast Highway (Source: Malibu GIS, 2024) Exhibit D
216
2 Pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Section (MMC) 17.45.050, staff captured the primary view from an elevation of five feet, standing within a verified living room as determined by staff. The following exhibits are provided to confirm that the chosen observation point complies with the MMC. (Exhibit 2)
Exhibit 2A and 2B: The primary
view was documented from an
interior location, at an elevation
of five feet. (Source: Staff
photo, 12/3/2024)
2A
2B
217
3 The view location and orientation was agreed upon by the property owner. The 180-degree primary view faces predominately southwest toward the Pacific Ocean. The nature of the view primarily consists of the ocean and existing development. The location where the primary view determination photographs were taken is denoted by a red star in the aerial below. (Exhibit 3) Exhibit 3: Aerial view of the 180-degree circumference at 33572 Pacific Coast Highway. (Source: Malibu GIS, 2024) *This is a general location of the view 1 2
3 4
5 218
4 The following photographs (Views 1 through 5) represent the property’s recorded primary view.

View 1- Looking East
(Source: Staff Photo,
12/2/2024)
View 2- Looking South/
Southeast (Source: Staff
Photo, 12/2/2024)
219
5 View 3- Looking
Southwest (Source: Staff
Photo, 12/2/2024)
View 4- Looking
West (Source: Staff
Photo, 12/2/2024)
220
View 5- Looking
Northwest (Source: Staff
Photo, 12/2/2024)
221
222
223
224
City of Malibu
Re: Appeal of PVD No. 24-031
December 10, 2024
4 | Page
Applicable Law
Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”) Section 17.40.040(A)(17) states: Landscaping.

Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the planning division for approval. Vegetation provided for in the plan shall be situated on the property so as not at any time (given consideration of its future growth) to obstruct significantly the primary view from private property, and shall otherwise be in conformance with all city requirements. Vegetation, excepting that with a mature height of six feet or less, shall not be planted on the property unless in conformance with an approved landscaping plan. The planning manager/director may approve modifications to a landscaping plan. Assistance and information will be provided by the city biologist.
"Primary view" means visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines shall be protected. The planning manager/director shall assess the "primary view corridor" of any principal residence located within 1,000 feet of a proposed structure or addition. The primary view corridor shall be assessed from a single fixed location and direction within only one of the selected main viewing areas, at an elevation of five feet as measured from the room floor or on an abutting outdoor deck or patio at any one point within 10 feet of the nearest outside wall of the building as selected by the affected property owner and the city.

The "main viewing area" shall be limited to the ground floor of the principal residence, or the primary living area (excluding bedrooms) if not located on the ground floor, or abutting outdoor deck or patio area at relatively the same elevation as the ground floor of the principal residence whichever has the superior view corridor.

Hallways, closets and mechanical rooms shall not be considered main viewing areas.

The planning manager/director shall determine the "main viewing area" by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area within the structure where the view is taken.

The affected property owner shall be entitled to one primary view corridor; and once finally determined for a particular application, the main viewing area and primary view corridor may not be changed for any subsequent application. In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the main viewing area, the decision of the city shall control.

The width of the primary view corridor shall extend the entire width of the protected primary view not to exceed a maximum of 180 degrees in width from the selected fixed location and direction. The primary view corridor shall exclude the first 18 feet of the proposed building height as measured from the existing natural grade or 225
226
City of Malibu
Re: Appeal of PVD No. 24-031
December 10, 2024
6 | Page
There are no mountain or canyon views. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has been on site or viewed an aerial of the Subject Property and orientation of the residence. This fact is corroborated by the Subject Property owners. While the Subject Property is zoned residential it is mainly utilized as an event space and film / photo location. On their website, www.cypressseacove.com, they state “For over 35 years, Cypress Sea Cove has been Malibu’s premier photo, film and wedding location. Cypress Sea Cove is a two acre bluff top Victorian estate with panorama ocean views, private beach frontage, and expansive lawns and greens.” What is noticeable missing from that description is any reference of a view of the Santa Monica Mountains. Furthermore, the website contains a video and 48 photos of the Subject Property broken into the following categories: “Beach”, “East”, “Entrance”, “Bluff”, “Night” and “West”. A true and correct copy of the photos from their website www.cypressseacove.com are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and hereby incorporated by reference. Neither the video nor one of the 48 photos depict a view of the Santa Monica Mountains nor the primary view corridor selected in the PVD. The reason being is that the main viewing area and primary view corridor in PVD is fabricated to oppose and delay a project.

Conclusion
Based upon the evidence presented, the PVD’s selected primary view corridor and main viewing area does not reflect the Subject Property’s primary view corridor or main viewing area.

The primary view corridor and main viewing area selected does not meet the intent of the code and was merely selected as an attempt to weaponize the code to delay and torpedo CDP No. 19-011. Thus far, they have been unsuccessful as CDP No. 19-011 was approved at the Planning Commission, however, the Subject Property owners have filed an appeal to the City Council based upon the fabricated PVD and an alleged view obstruction of the Santa Monica Mountains.

This bad faith, made-up primary view corridor and main viewing area has given the Subject Property Owner’s an avenue to challenge CDP No. 19-011 and file a frivolous appeal. The MMC provides the Planning Director the authority to overrule a property owner’s desired primary view corridor and main viewing area selections and given the blatant fabricated primary view corridor and main viewing area selected in PVD No. 24-031, they must do so and throw out the frivolous appeal.

227
EXHIBIT 1
228
From: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Richard Greenbauer <[email protected]>; Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Hi Richard and Raneika,
The email below is from a concerned neighbor of a proposed NSFR. Would you like me to respond and offer a PVD or would either of you prefer to respond? Kindly,
Adriana
From: Charmaine Mark
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 11:53 AM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Mark <[email protected]>
Subject: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Planning Department
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 485
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 4 ends

mhtml:file://C:\Users\Justin\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outl... 12/11/2024 229
F om Richa d G een aue
To l
Subject w 33610 acif c C ast Highw y Mal bu
Date day Oc obe 25 20 4 3 45 22 M
A tachmen s Outlook- ogoAn ima ng
Out ook n ma e o png
Out ook n ma e o png
Out ook n ma e o png
Out ook n ma e o png
Just n,
FYI below - Have you had commun cat on w th the ne ghbo pu po t ng v ew b ockage? Respectful y,
R cha d G eenbaue , Cont act Consultant
(949) 489-1442, ext. 132 o v a ema l at g eenbaue @c v csolut ons.com. om ma ibu plann ng <mp ann ng@mal buc ty o g>
Sent iday Octobe 25 2024 2 00 M
To Richa d G eenbaue <g eenbaue @civicso u ions com> Rane ka B ooks < b ooks@malibucity o g> Subject w 33610 aci c Coa t Highway Ma ibu
Hi R cha d and Rane ka
The email be ow s om a conce ned ne ghbo o a p oposed NS R Would you ike me to espond and o e a VD o would eithe o you p e e to espond? K ndly
Ad ana
lanning Depa tment
O ce (310) 456 2489 ext 485
23825 Stua t Ranch Road | Ma ibu CA 90265
Ema l
om Cha ma ne Ma
Sent iday Octobe
To mal bu p ann ng <mp anning@mal buci y o g>
Cc Matthew Ma k <ma thew ma k@us eco p com>
Subject 33610 aci c Coast Highway Ma ibu
230
Looks ke ou ne ghbo s t y ng to bu d a 2 sto y home? We a e not happy w h the he ght t b ocks ou ent ance v ew of he ocean Whe e a e you w th he pe m tt ng p ocess? We wou d ke to we gh n Cha ma ne Ma k
Ce (310) 383-9558
231
Looks like our neighbor is trying to build a 2 story home? We are not happy with the height. It blocks our entrance view of the ocean. Where are you with the permitting process? We would like to weigh in.

Charmaine Mark

Page 4 of 4 ends

mhtml:file://C:\Users\Justin\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outl... 12/11/2024 232
EXHIBIT 2
233
234
EXHIBIT 3
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, February 18, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 24-010 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-39 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 for the construction of a 4,620 square foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence with an attached garage approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034, extension of the existing swimming pool and spa, driveway reconfiguration, improvements to existing tennis court, new hardscaping, landscaping, grading, and onsite wastewater treatment system; including Demolition Permt No. 24-020 for the demolition of an existing hardscape and landscape; and Site Plan Review No. 23-026 for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height for a flat roof
Location: 29738 Cuthbert Road
APN: 4469-041-011
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(e) and (I), and 15303(d)
Applicant: JTD Architects
Owner: Malibo LLC
Appellant: Charlotte Frieze Jones on behalf of Malibu Park Neighbors Group Application Filed: October 26, 2023
Appeal Filed: August 15, 2024
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Case Planner: Aakash Shah, Contract Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 385
[email protected]
APPEAL NO. 24-011 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-77 approving Coastal Development Permit No. 19-011 for the construction of a new 3,977.5 square foot, 28 foot high two-story single-family home with basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, new onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24- 022 for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet in height for a pitched roof and Minor Modification No. 24-006 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent Location: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
APN(s): 4473-021-012
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a), 15303(e) and 15304(b)
Applicant: Block and Block
Owner: Peaches LLC, DBA 33616 PCH
Appellant: Matthew Mark
Application Filed: March 4, 2019
Appeal Filed: December 9, 2024
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Exhibit F
250
Case Planner: Richard Greenbauer, Contract Planner
(949) 489-1442, extension 132
[email protected]
For the projects identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on February 12, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours.

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

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

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

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

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact the assigned case planner.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: January 15, 2026
251

Page 1 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Courtney Brown, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director
Approved by: Robert DuBoux, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: February 12, 2026 Meeting date: March 18, 2026 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 (within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, Owner: California Department of Transportation; Appellant: Dr. Thomas G. Diamantidis)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-10 (Exhibit A) denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-001 (Exhibit B), determining the pilot project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25-041, an application for the temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts at the intersection of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, as recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (City of Malibu Public Works Department and Caltrans); or 2) Direct staff to return with a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: In November 2025, the City Council adopted a three-year Strategic Plan that includes Goal 4, which prioritizes the improvement of public safety. This goal incorporates Objective 4.1, which aims to reduce injury and fatal collisions along PCH.

City Council Meeting
03-18-26
Item

1.B.

Page 2 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

DISCUSSION: The matter before the Council is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 25-041, an application for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts at the intersection of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, as recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City in partnership with the California Department of Transportation. The appellant, Dr. Thomas G. Diamantidis (and a group of residents as described in Exhibit B), subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project.

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

Project Background and Overview
PCH, which is owned and controlled by Caltrans and the State, historically has received complaints about drivers exceeding the allowable speed limits, parking issues, and safe access to popular visitor-serving areas along the coast. Over the past five years, and primarily due to the location of PCH within it, the City has experienced a high number of fatalities and serious injuries due to vehicular collisions compared to similarly sized cities.

Compared to California’s other 483 cities, the City of Malibu is ranked 91st per capita, despite being one of the smallest cities in the State. On June 22, 2015, the City Council adopted the 2015 PCH Safety Study,1 wherein the City, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Caltrans examined the current road conditions, analyzed accident patterns, assessed traffic conflicts, and developed recommended strategies to improve safety along the PCH corridor.

Caltrans, working with the City’s Public Works Department, has proposed a pilot project to improve safety, slow vehicular speeds, and reduce crash severity along PCH. The pilot project proposes the installation of various temporary roadway improvements entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and existing roadway prism (i.e., completely within the disturbed and paved area along PCH) along an approximate 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between Broach Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road. The temporary pilot project is intended to gather community feedback and test the effectiveness of the project to 1 The final PCH Safety Study is available for review at: https://www.malibucity.org/443/PCH-Safety-Study. Recommended projects are included in Appendix C. Recommended intersection focused project figures are included in Appendix D. Final recommended project prioritizations are included in Appendix H.

Page 3 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.
evaluate the feasibility of installing a permanent roundabout at this location or at similar locations within the PCH roadway prism. Figure 1 below displays the project location.

The proposed project has been reviewed by the Planning Division, City Biologist. And City Public Works Department (Exhibit C, Attachment 4 -Department Review Sheets).

Project Setting
Figure 1 – Project Location
Source: Google Maps
The project site is partially located within the Appealable Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. The project site does not contain mapped trails according to the LCP Park Lands Map. The development will not be located within any LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as the physical improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle, and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway.

Project Elements
The proposed improvements would begin at the intersection of PCH and Broad Beach Road (approximately 0.5 miles east of the El Matador State Beach entrance). Utilizing striping and medians, the number of northbound travel lanes would be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction. Traveling west along PCH and leading up to the proposed roundabout at El Matador Beach Road, raised medians of varying widths (2 to 16 feet) would be constructed in one of the travel lanes in each direction. The

Page 4 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.
single northbound and southbound lanes would be separated with an island varying in width from 3 to 24 feet, with five-foot-wide bicycle lanes proposed adjacent to each lane.

The bike lanes are Class II lanes and striped for one-way bike travel in each direction with striped buffers. A seven-foot parking lane is proposed along the southbound lane. The proposed roundabout is expected to have a raised island width of 49 feet with 18-foot thrulanes. Figure 2 below shows the median plan.

Figure 2 – El Matador and PCH Cross Section Roundabout Northbound Source: Caltrans
After exiting the El Matador State Beach roundabout traveling west, PCH will continue to operate as a single-lane highway in each direction for vehicles with striped bicycle lanes.

At the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road, a second roundabout would be installed with raised medians ranging in width from 6 to 26 feet. North and southbound traffic will be separated with an island, which will vary in width from 8 to 12 feet. The roundabout is expected to have a raised island width of 50 feet with 18-foot-wide thru-lanes. After exiting the Encinal Canyon Road roundabout traveling west, the number of highway lanes will return to their current condition resulting in an increase from two to four lanes, with two northbound and two southbound lanes. Figure 3 shows the roundabout and median plan.

Page 5 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Figure 3 – Encinal Canyon and PCH Roundabout Cross Section Northbound Source: Caltrans Project Plans
For safety purposes, a total of eight temporary lighting fixtures are proposed at the roundabouts to illuminate the vehicle and bicycle thru-lanes as well as the pedestrian crosswalks. The proposed fixtures would be pole-mounted and installed within the public right-of-way, with the illumination directed downward to the roadway. The proposed lighting is not subject to the Dark Sky Ordinance as it is considered lighting solely for the use of the public right-of-way (MMC Section 17.41.040(E); however, the lighting specifications indicate the fixtures would be downward directed, utilize 40-watt and 4000 Kelvin LED fixtures, and be mounted on a 25-foot pole with a four-foot arm. Additionally, a condition has been added to ensure the lights will not exceed trespass limits onto adjacent properties, further protecting neighboring sites. Each pole would include a solar panel for system charging during the day. The poles would be constructed on a portable three-foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. Figure 4 provides an example of the proposed lighting included in the application materials. The application materials include the complete set of lights involved with the project, including any navigational signals proposed with the project. Details can be found int the project plans, Exhibit C.

Page 6 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. A condition of approval has been added to ensure further protection of adjacent ESHA via light trespass being limited to the roadway.

Figure 4 – Example Roundabout Lighting Design
Source: Fonroche Lighting Plan
Streetlights serve as a critical navigational feature, enhancing visibility and improving driver orientation when accessing the proposed roundabouts at night. Figure 4 illustrates that the proposed street lighting would be centrally located within the roadway prism and is not expected to result in light trespass onto ESHA or adjacent residential properties.

To accommodate the roundabouts and to provide safe pedestrian crossing, additional improvements are proposed, including new crosswalk striping and portable temporary rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), new Quick-Kurb bollards for traffic channelization, and the installation of new roadway signs.

The construction period for the pilot project is expected to take up to 90 days. To facilitate the proposed work, phased lane closures will be required. All lane closures will comply with Caltrans Standard Plans for Traffic Control, including applicable lane closure charts contained in the Maintaining Traffic Specifications and/or reversible lane closure requirements. Attachment 2 – Project Plans (Sheets TC-01 to TC-04) reflect the proposed traffic control plan.

Page 7 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

The roadway improvements are temporary and are to be utilized for a minimum of 15 months and would be eligible for up to a three-month time extension. This period would allow Caltrans and the City’s Public Works Department to perform Safety and Operational Performance Assessments to determine if the roundabouts provide significant safety enhancements to PCH. At the conclusion of the pilot program period and based on the data received, the improvements would either be removed and the PCH travel lanes restored to pre-condition, or the improvements would be retained permanently, subject to an approved permit, including a new or amended CDP. This is reflected in Condition No. 3 in the attached resolution.

The project is proposed along a designated scenic road pursuant to LCP Land use Plan (LUP) Policy 6.5 and would be visible from scenic areas, such as trails and parkland in the vicinity. However, the medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one-foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed the width of 48 inches.

On September 15, 2025, the City’s Public Works Department released a public notification of the project by mailing 150 letters to nearby residents regarding the upcoming Public Works Commission hearing. On September 24, 2025, the applicant team presented the project to the Public Works Commission, who recommended that a community meeting be held to further discuss the proposal with local residents. In response, the applicant team hosted community meetings on October 22, 2025, virtually and again on December 2, 2025, in-person at City Hall.

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

The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains provisions to carry out the policies of the LUP to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere. The project’s conformance with the LCP is analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit C).

Planning Commission Hearing
On December 16, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the item. Members of the public, both in-person and virtually, spoke in opposition and in favor of the project. After deliberation, the Commission approved the pilot project on a 3-2 vote as proposed and added the following conditions:

1. Amending Condition No. 3 in Resolution No. 25-78 to state, “The authorized improvements are considered temporary and to be utilized for a minimum of fifteen months once operational, up to a maximum of 18 months. This period is intended

Page 8 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.
to allow Caltrans and the City Public Works Department to gather enough data to determine if the roundabouts provide significant safety enhancements on PCH within the project area. At the conclusion of the authorized period, the improvements would need to be removed and the PCH travel lanes restored to precondition. Should the City and/or Caltrans request to retain the improvements permanently as designed, authorization shall be subject to an approved CDP.”

2. Adding Condition No. 34 to state, “The applicant must submit a report to the Planning Commission at the conclusion of the 15-month test period, detailing the impact of the temporary improvements.” (This has been changed “submit a report to the City Council” in the resolution)

3. Modify Condition No. 15b to state, “The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, reflective paint, bollards, and other safety devices as needed, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.”

4. Addition Condition No. 28e to state, “Construction is prohibited between Memorial Day and Labor Day.”

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Following the Planning Commission approval, Appeal No. 26-001 was submitted by Dr.

Thomas G. Diamantidis, who is the primary contact on behalf of all the individuals who appealed the Planning Commission’s decision. The complete appeal can be found in Exhibit B. The main points brought forth in the appeal are summarized below followed by staff analysis.

Appeal Item 1. The 2015 PCH Safety Study did not recommend a roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH.

Staff Response: This argument solely relates to policy issues and does not provide grounds to deny the application. The Council and Caltrans may independently, as coapplicants, choose to alter the project—but that is not before the Council. The Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body in evaluating this project and whether the evidence supports the required findings for the project’s approval. The Council, at a future meeting, could choose not to fund or move forward with the project—but again, that is not before the Council today where the sole issue is whether the evidence supports the required findings, and if it does, a CDP should be issued.

Page 9 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.
intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH, but the canyon road is not being realigned.

The City’s Public Works Department and Caltrans concluded that the proposed locations, directly at the existing intersections, is the best location to slow down traffic on PCH and increase safety as recommended by the 2015 safety study.

Appeal Item 2. Adequate information as required by the City’s LCP to approve the project including supporting documents, such as a transportation study or traffic analysis, were not provided to substantiate the safety of the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH.

Staff Response:

The appellant does not identify a section of the LIP or LUP that would require additional information to be provided. In addition, the 2015 safety study was the result of years-long studies conducted by the City, in collaboration with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which concluded that a roundabout along PCH at a newly realigned Encinal Canyon Road intersection was a recommended measure to increase safety on PCH.

The entire study can be found on the City’s website. A total of nine public meetings were held over the course of the study. Members of the community in attendance had the opportunity to share ideas and concerns. Public input was presented to the Project Steering Committee in April 2015, and the Public Works Commission and Public Safety Commission at a Joint Special Meeting on May 21, 2015, before going to the City Council for final review and approval on June 22, 2015. The Project Steering Committee included representatives from the City of Malibu, the offices of Senator Fran Pavley, Assemblymember Richard Bloom, and County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, SCAG, Metro, County of Los Angeles, City of Malibu, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Pepperdine University, A Safer PCH, Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, the Malibu Chamber of Commerce, and residents.

Appeal Item 3. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon and PCH would encroach on private driveways and would not meet the guidelines of the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (USDOT FHWA) and removal of vehicle separation will create a less safe condition for bicyclists and vehicles.

Staff Response: The project is proposed by the City in collaboration with Caltrans who are responsible to ensure that the project complies with all federal regulations including any required measures by the FHWA. Caltrans has ensured that the design of the roundabouts is in compliance with all FHWA requirements. Caltrans also owns the property on which the project will be constructed or has property rights that allow the proposed construction.

Page 10 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Caltrans also could be able to acquire any needed property through eminent domain proceedings—though no such proceedings are required for the project.

Appeal Item 4. The proposed roundabout at Encinal Canyon Road and PCH would encroach into ESHA, and the project was not presented to the Environmental Review Board (ERB) which conflicts with LIP Section 13.C(4).

Staff Response: The pilot project will be constructed entirely within the existing roadway prism and would not expand outside of the existing developed accessway. A portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a mapped blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. The pilot project would be constructed outside of ESHA but within the ESHA buffer.

LIP Section 4.5.4(A) permits public accessways within an ESHA buffer. The project would not create a significant impact on any sensitive habitats, since all development would occur within the boundaries of the roadway prism.

LIP Section 4.4.4 exempts projects from ERB review if it includes additions to existing structures that are within a lawfully established graded pad area that does not require additional fuel modification. The project is proposed completely within a pre-existing graded pad area of a State Highway and the highway is not being expanded to accommodate the improvements. There is no fuel modification associated with the project and as a result, there are no direct impacts to nearby ESHAs or streams. Therefore, referral to the ERB for review is not required.

Appeal Item 5. The project would inhibit public access opportunities.

Staff Response: The project will not impact public access. Currently, there are 299 total parking spaces along the PCH corridor between PM 58.4 and 59.9, comprising 123 oceanside and 176 landside spaces. To accommodate the proposed roundabouts, some existing spaces will be relocated to areas previously designed as “No Parking”. Within the PCH roadway prism, 39 existing parking spaces will be relocated, which will result in a total of 146 oceanside parking spaces and 153 inland parking spaces. The number of parking spaces to access El Matador State Beach will not change. But rather, parking will be installed in close proximity to the roundabouts to encourage visitors to use the designated crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB). Contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the project will improve public access via vehicle, bicycle, and onfoot through these improvements.

Appeal Item 6. The installation of walls, lights, foundation, and other improvements will create a significant adverse scenic or visual impact.

Staff Response: The eight temporary lighting fixtures are proposed at the roundabouts to illuminate the vehicle and bicycle thru-lanes and pedestrian crosswalks. The light fixtures

Page 11 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.
would be downward-directed, utilizing 40-watt and 4,000 Kelvin LED fixtures mounted on a 25-foot pole with four-foot arms, with the inclusion of a solar panel atop the pole. The poles would be constructed on portable three-foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. The light poles will be installed outside of the thru-lanes parking areas along PCH and will not impact beach access. A condition of approval was added to ensure that light trespass will be limited to the highway and not spill onto adjacent properties, congruent with City Dark Sky principles.

The oceanside light poles would be located adjacent to existing Southern California (SoCal) Edison power poles and vegetation and would not result in a substantial obstruction of views of the Pacific Ocean. The new poles would blend in with existing utility poles in the area. In addition, the inland light poles would be sited to avoid obstruction of blue-water ocean views from properties located north of Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road. The northbound inland pole at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road will be constructed near existing power boxes, power poles, and light poles. Finally, the three-foot-tall foundations will be at similar heights to existing bollards and will blend in with the environment as designed. The street directional signs, while new should not exceed a width of 48 inches and should not have a significant adverse or scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons per LIP Section

6.4(A)((1). A State highway already exists in this area and is not proposed to encroach beyond its existing envelope. Small visual changes to the look of the highway do not constitute an adverse impact upon scenic areas.

Appeal Item 7. The project would not be exempt from the CEQA and will increase transportation hazards on PCH due to the inclusion of the private driveways into the roundabout design and conflict with guidance from the USDOT FHWA, reduction of lanes, reducing vehicle separation, and creating less safe conditions on PCH.

Staff Response: The proposed pilot project would be constructed entirely within the PCH right-of-way and would not extend beyond the existing roadway prism. As such, the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Class 1 – Existing Facilities), as it involves minor alterations to an existing public facility. The categorical exemption allows for highway improvements including improvements for public safety that do not increase the number of lanes, consistent with the proposed project. Condition of Approval No. 19 states that “access to driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times, unless otherwise coordinated with property owners for restricted access;” accordingly, the pilot project would not result in impacts to private driveways during construction or throughout the pilot project.

In addition, the pilot project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15303(d) (Class 3 – New Construction), which allows for street improvements of reasonable length.

Accordingly, the proposed reduction in vehicle thru-lanes, installation of bicycle lanes, onstreet parking, and pedestrian crossings would be exempt from CEQA.

Page 12 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Appeal Item 8. Lack of fair or impartial hearing, claiming the City did not properly notice the project.

Staff Response: On September 15, 2025, the City’s Public Works Department released a public notification of the project by mailing 150 letters to nearby residents regarding the upcoming Public Works Commission hearing. On September 24, 2025, the applicant team presented the project to the Public Works Commission, which recommended that a community meeting be held to further discuss the proposal with local residents. In response, the applicant team hosted community meetings on October 22, 2025, virtually and again on December 2, 2025, in-person at City Hall.

All CDP projects are required to provide public notice of the application prior to a public hearing. The applicant team laminated and properly posted physical notices at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH, as well as at the entrance to El Matador State Beach. In compliance with LIP Section 13.12.1(A), on December 4, 2025, the application was noticed at least ten calendar days prior to the first public hearing and published in a newspaper for general circulation within the City of Malibu and a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the pilot project, between PM 58.4 and PM 59.9.

Staff presented the application to the Planning Commission on December 16, 2025. After the project was presented by staff, a public hearing was held with the applicant team and members of the public; the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the project with a 3-2 vote. Appellants had notice of the hearing, and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, any concerns regarding the conduct of the hearing would be cured as the hearing before the City Council is on a de novo basis.

For more details on the project and compliance with the LCP, the December 16, 2025 Planning Commission staff report is found in Exhibit C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Director has analyzed the proposed pilot project. The Community Development Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed pilot project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(c) – Existing Facilities along Highways and 15303(d) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

Page 13 of 13 ends

Agenda Item # 1.B.

CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence received prior to the Planning Commission meeting for the subject application is included in Exhibit D. Correspondence received on or after that meeting and prior to the City Council meeting are attached within Exhibit D.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On February 12, 2026, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and the notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject project area (Exhibit E).

EXHIBITS:

A. Council Resolution No. 26-10
B. Appeal No. 26-001
C. December 16, 2025, Planning Commission Agenda Report and Attachments D. Correspondence Received on or after the Planning Commission Meeting E. Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 26-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DENYING APPEAL NO. 26-008, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 25-041 FOR A

PILOT PROJECT FOR TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN BROAD

BEACH ROAD AND LA PIEDRA BEACH ROAD, INCLUDING LANE

REDUCTIONS, SIGNAGE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF TWO

ROUNDABOUTS WITH SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF

EL MATADOR BEACH ROAD AND ENCINAL CANYON ROAD,
BETWEEN POST MILE 58.4 AND 59.9, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE 2015

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SAFETY STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY

OF MALIBU IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION (CITY OF MALIBU PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT AND CALTRANS)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On June 22, 2015, the Malibu’s City Council adopted the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Safety Study, developed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which authorized recommendations for measures to improve safety along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) corridor to reduce vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts.

B. On September 9, 2025, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25-041 was submitted to the Planning Division by the City of Malibu Public Works Department to request authorization for improvements on a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between Broad Beach Road and La Pietra Beach Road, between Post Mile (PM) 58.4 and 59.9, as recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

C. On October 3, 2025, Notices of Coastal Development Permit Application were posted along PCH at the intersections of El Matador State Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road.

D. On October 22, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a virtual town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed project.

E. On December 2, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a second town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed project.

F. On December 4, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject project area.

G. On December 16, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony and other information in the record. The Planning Commission approved the project with added conditions on a 3-2 vote.

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 2 of 13 ends

______________________
H. On January 6, 2026, Appeal No. 26-001 was filed by a resident group.

I. On February 12, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500-foot radius of the subject property.

J. On March 18, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

Section 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(c) and Existing Facilities, 15303(d) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

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

This argument solely relates to policy issues and does not provide grounds to deny the application.

The Council and Caltrans may independently, as co-applicants, choose to alter the project—but that is not before the Council. The Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body in evaluating this project and whether the evidence supports the required findings for the project’s approval. The Council, at a future meeting, could choose not to fund or move forward with the project—but again, that is not before the Council today where the sole issue is whether the evidence supports the required findings, and if it does a CDP should be issued.

Nevertheless, the 2015 PCH Safety Study recommended realigning Encinal Canyon Road to intersect with La Piedra Beach Road and considered a roundabout at the newly aligned intersection. The realignment of Encinal Canyon Road would occur on a fifty-foot-wide strip of property located at 32701 Pacific Coast Highway that was previously owned by the State of California. The realignment of Encinal Canyon Road, and the connector to La Piedra Beach Road, is not proposed. The safety study included roundabouts at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH, but the canyon road is not being realigned. The City’s Public Works Department and Caltrans concluded that the proposed locations, directly at the existing intersections, is the best location to slow down traffic on PCH and increase safety as recommended by the 2015 safety Resolution No. 26-10

Page 3 of 13 ends

______________________
study.

The 2015 safety study was the result of years-long studies conducted by the City, in collaboration with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which concluded that a roundabout along PCH at a newly realigned Encinal Canyon Road intersection was a recommended measure to increase safety on PCH. A total of nine public meetings were held over the course of the study. Members of the community in attendance had the opportunity to share ideas and concerns. Public input was presented to the Project Steering Committee in April 2015, and the Public Works Commission and Public Safety Commission at a Joint Special Meeting on May 21, 2015, before going to the City Council for final review and approval on June 22, 2015.

The Project Steering Committee included representatives from the City of Malibu, the offices of Senator Fran Pavley, Assemblymember Richard Bloom, and County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, SCAG, Metro, County of Los Angeles, City of Malibu, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Pepperdine University, A Safer PCH, Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, the Malibu Chamber of Commerce, and residents.

The project is proposed by the City in collaboration with Caltrans who are responsible to ensure that the project complies with all federal regulations including any required measures by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Caltrans has ensured that the design of the roundabouts is in compliance with all FHWA requirements. Caltrans also owns the property on which the project will be constructed, or has property rights that allow the proposed construction. Caltrans also could be able to acquire any needed property through eminent domain proceedings—though no such proceedings are required for the project.

The pilot project will be constructed entirely within the existing roadway prism and would not expand outside of the existing developed accessway. A portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a mapped blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. The pilot project would be constructed outside of ESHA but within the ESHA buffer. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) permits public accessways within an ESHA buffer. The project would not create a significant impact on any sensitive habitats, since all development would occur within the boundaries of the roadway prism. LIP Section 4.4.4 exempts projects from the Environmental Review Board (ERB) review if it includes additions to existing structures that are within a lawfully established graded pad area that does not require additional fuel modification. The project is proposed completely within a pre-existing graded pad area of a State Highway and the highway is not being expanded to accommodate the improvements. There is no fuel modification associated with the project and as a result, there are no direct impacts to nearby ESHAs or streams. Therefore, referral to the ERB for review is not required.

The project will not impact public access. Currently, there are 299 total parking spaces along the PCH corridor between PM 58.4 and 59.9, comprising 123 oceanside and 176 landside spaces. To accommodate the proposed roundabouts, some existing spaces will be relocated to areas previously designed as “No Parking”. Within the PCH roadway prism, 39 existing parking spaces will be relocated, which will result in a total of 146 oceanside parking spaces and 153 inland parking spaces. The number of parking spaces to access El Matador State Beach will not change. But rather, parking will be installed in close proximity to the roundabouts to encourage visitors to use the designated crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB). Contrary of the appellant’s assertions, the project will improve public access via vehicle, bicycle, and on-foot Resolution No. 26-10

Page 4 of 13 ends

______________________
through these improvements.

The eight temporary lighting fixtures are proposed at the roundabouts to illuminate the vehicle and bicycle thru-lanes and pedestrian crosswalks. The light fixtures would be downward-directed, utilizing 40-watt and 4,000 Kelvin LED fixtures mounted on a 25-foot pole with four-foot arms, with the inclusion of a solar panel atop the pole. The poles would be constructed on portable threefoot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. The light poles will be installed outside of the thru-lanes parking areas along PCH and will not impact beach access. A condition of approval was added to ensure that light trespass will be limited to the highway and not spill onto adjacent properties, congruent with City Dark Sky principles.

The proposed pilot project would be constructed entirely within the PCH right-of-way and would not extend beyond the existing roadway prism. As such, the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Class 1 – Existing Facilities), as it involves minor alterations to an existing public highway. The categorical exemption allows for highway improvements including improvements for public safety that do not increase the number of lanes, consistent with the proposed project. Condition of Approval No. 19 states that “access to driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times, unless otherwise coordinated with property owners for restricted access;” accordingly, the pilot project would not result in impacts to private driveways during construction or throughout the pilot project. In addition, the pilot project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15303(d) (Class 3 – New Construction), which allows for street improvements of reasonable length. Accordingly, the proposed reduction in vehicle thru-lanes, installation of bicycle lanes, onstreet parking, and pedestrian crossings would be exempt from CEQA.

On September 15, 2025, the City’s Public Works Department released a public notification of the project by mailing 150 letters to nearby residents regarding the upcoming Public Works Commission hearing. On September 24, 2025, the applicant team presented the project to the Public Works Commission, which recommended that a community meeting be held to further discuss the proposal with local residents. In response, the applicant team hosted community meetings on October 22, 2025, virtually and again on December 2, 2025, in-person at City Hall.

All CDP projects are required to provide public notice of the application prior to a public hearing.

The applicant team laminated and properly posted physical notices at the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road and PCH, as well as at the entrance to El Matador State Beach. In compliance with Resolution No. 26-10

Page 5 of 13 ends

______________________
LIP Section 13.12.1(A), on December 4, 2025, the application was noticed at least ten calendar days prior to the first public hearing and published in a newspaper for general circulation within the City of Malibu and a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the pilot project, between PM 58.4 and PM 59.9.

Appellants had notice of the hearing, and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, any concerns regarding the conduct of the hearing would be cured as the hearing before the City Council is on a de novo basis.

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP 25-041 for a pilot project for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, between post mile 58.4 and 59.9, as recommended in the 2015 pacific coast highway safety study conducted by the City of Malibu in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) by the Planning Division, City Biologist, and City Public Works Department. The pilot project involves improvements to an existing public road and is consistent with the policies of LUP Chapter 7 (Public Works) by improving public safety and multimodal access to and between visitor-serving and recreation areas. As discussed herein, based on submitted documents, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed pilot project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable development standards.

2. The project is located along the first public road and the sea and would be in conformance with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, as the project would not inhibit public access opportunities. As part of the proposed highway improvements, vehicular and bicycle access will be maintained and improved for safety purposes along PCH within the project area. The roundabouts would also provide safer access to El Matador State Beach and Encinal Canyon Road and would not impede existing or future access to the beach or parks. On-street parking will be provided along southbound PCH with designated striping. The project is temporary and intended to provide for safety improvements along a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH. As depicted on the LCP Park Lands Map, the closest mapped trail is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site and existing recreation in the project area would not be impacted by the Resolution No. 26-10

Page 6 of 13 ends

______________________
proposed improvements. Therefore, the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code.

3. The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. It does not include structures or development outside of the public rightof-way or require any offsite grading or other offsite improvements outside of the existing disturbed public right-of-way. The project would improve safety conditions by reducing vehicular speeds, enabling safer pedestrian crossing and bicycle travel, and improving visibility. The temporary highway improvements, including two roundabouts and safety lighting, are limited to a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between La Piedra State Beach and Broad Beach Road. There are no impacts to coastal access, scenic resources, or environmental resources that are not otherwise permitted and/or exempted in the LCP. As proposed, the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The development will not be located within any mapped environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP and the finding is not applicable.

B. Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Findings (LIP Section 6.4)

1. The project is proposed along on a designated scenic road pursuant to LUP Policy

6.5 and would be visible from scenic areas, such as trails and parkland in the vicinity. However, the medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one-foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting.

The proposed lighting is not subject to the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance pursuant to the MMC as it is considered street lighting. However, the proposed lighting specifications indicate the fixtures would be downward directed, utilize 40-watt and 4000 Kelvin LED fixtures, and mounted on a 25-foot pole with four-foot arm. Each pole would include a solar panel for system charging during the day. The poles would be constructed on portable three-foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. Based on the allowances in the LIP, as well as a review of the project plans and the nature of the surrounding area, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 7 of 13 ends

______________________

2. As conditioned, the project would be limited to a maximum of 18 months.

Conditions of approval are included to ensure that the light poles blend in as much as feasible with the surrounding environment through the use of materials, colors, and the prohibition of highly reflective materials except for solar panels, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. As conditioned, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.

1.2-mile stretch of PCH between La Piedra State Beach and Broad Beach Road. There are no impacts to coastal access, scenic resources, or environmental resources that are not otherwise permitted and/or exempted in the LCP. As proposed, the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. As proposed and conditioned, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards. The project has already been designed for location entirely within the PCH public rightof-way and within the existing roadway prism. The medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one-foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting.

5. The development will not be located within any mapped ESHA pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. Therefore, the pilot project will have no significant scenic and visual impacts nor contribute adversely to sensitive resource protection policies.

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 8 of 13 ends

______________________
SECTION 5. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 25-041, subject to the following conditions, which are applicable to the project, as noted below.

SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.

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

2. The approved scope authorizes the installation of temporary improvements, for a period not to exceed a maximum of 18 months once operational, within the PCH public right-ofway between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, medians, striping for bicycle lanes and on-street parking, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting, crosswalks and associated improvements at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road.

3. The authorized improvements are considered temporary and to be utilized for a minimum of fifteen months once operational, up to a maximum of 18 months. This period is intended to allow Caltrans and the City’s Public Works Department to gather enough data to determine if the roundabouts provide significant safety enhancements on PCH within the project area. At the conclusion of the authorized period, the improvements would need to be removed and the PCH travel lanes restored to pre-condition. Should the City and/or Caltrans request to retain the improvements permanently, authorization shall be subject to an approved permit.

4. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date-stamped November 20, 2025. 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.

5. 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 Division prior to the issuance of any development permits.

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 9 of 13 ends

______________________

6. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Division for consistency review and approval prior to plan check (as applicable) and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits, if necessary.

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

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

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

Cultural Resources

11. 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 Community Development Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Biology

13. No new landscaping is proposed with this project. Therefore, none is approved. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for review by the City Biologist and approval by the Planning Division prior to any planting. Should the applicant Resolution No. 26-10

Page 10 of 13 ends

______________________
intend to plant any new or altered vegetation with a potential to grow over six feet in height at full maturity for an area of 500 square feet or more of landscaping for a new residence, or 2,500 square feet or more of landscaping for an existing residence, a detailed Landscape Documentation Package is required.

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

Colors and Materials

15. The project is visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas and shall incorporate colors and materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. 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 light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, reflective paint, bollards, and other safety devices as needed, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. Necessary safety signage is not subject to these requirements if required by federal, State, or local law.

Public Works

16. The City of Malibu has completed installation of communication conduits along Pacific Coast Highway from Topanga Canyon to John Tyler Road for the traffic signal system in this region. It will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to properly identify, locate, and protect the utilities in place, especially those of the signal system. It will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to repair and replace any potential damage caused to the infrastructure as a result of this proposed scope of work.

17. The City of Malibu, Public Works Superintendent shall be invited to the preconstruction meeting prior to any construction activity taking place.

18. If applicable, applicant is to provide a Public Notification letter by printed notice to occupants of all properties within the construction zone on any access, parking and circulation restrictions and limitations that will be created by the construction at least 72 hours in advance of construction.

19. Access to the driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times, unless otherwise coordinated with property owners for restricted access.

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 11 of 13 ends

______________________

20. If temporary bathroom facilities for construction workers are used, the temporary bathroom facilities shall have secondary containment, and be sited and maintained to prevent any spills to the environment.

21. A Caltrans encroachment permit shall be obtained for any work proposed within the State's right-of-way.

22. If applicable, a traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and shall be approved by Caltrans prior to construction.

23. If applicable, no signs shall be placed within Caltrans right of way or City right of way unless all required encroachment permits are first obtained from Caltrans and/or City of Malibu.

24. If applicable, applicant shall ensure temporary “No Parking” signs shall designate the dates and times the parking restrictions are to be enforced. Such signs shall be posted 72 hours in advance of parking restriction and shall be placed no more than 100 feet apart and at each end of the area to be restricted.

25. The applicant shall maintain signs through the duration of construction from the time of placement to time of completion and is responsible for replacement of missing or damaged signs.

Construction

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

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

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

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 12 of 13 ends

______________________
Prior to Final Sign-Off

29. The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

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

31. Caltrans shall utilize light fixtures that are Dark Sky compliant to the maximum extent feasible. The light fixtures shall be fully shielded, 3,000 kelvins in color temperature, directed downward, and must not exceed the light trespass limits onto adjacent properties listed in MMC Section 17.41.050(G) unless necessary for adequate ingress/egress as reasonably determined by the Community Development Director. City staff shall inspect the installed lights at the cost of Caltrans and confirm compliance with this condition.

Fixed Conditions

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

33. 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.

34. The applicant must submit a report to the City Council at the conclusion of the 15-month test period, detailing the impact of the temporary improvements.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March 2026. ________________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 13 of 13 ends

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

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

CITY OF MALIBU
Incorporated Murch 28, 199
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, California 90265-4861
Phone (310) 456-2489 Fax (310) 456-3356 www.malibuci

PLANNING DIVISION

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL CHECKLIST
ity Y OF MALIBU RECEIVED
JAN 06 2026

PLANNING DIVISION
Actions Subject to Local Appeal: Pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision or any portion of the decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by an aggrieved person, and any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person.

Deadline and Fees: Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1, an appeal shallbe filed with the City Clerk within 10 days following the date of action for which the appeal is made, as indicated in the decision. If the tenth day falls on a weekend or a City-recognized holiday, the deadline shall extend to the close of business at City Hall on the first business day (whether whole or partial) following the weekend or a City-recognized holiday. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee of $750 as specified by the City Council.

To perfect an appeal, the form must be completed, together with all the necessary attachments, and must be timely received by the City Clerk either in person or by mail addressed to City of Malibu, Attn: City Clerk, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265. For more information, contact Patricia Salazar, Development and Operations Manager, at (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25-041

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing?

12.16.25 3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
Community Development Director ☑ Planning Commission

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
Citywide along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), from Broad
Beach Road to La Piedra Beach Road

Page 1 of 4 ends

P:\Forms\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Appeal Checklist CDP_220518.doсх Exhibit B
Part II. Appeal Summary

1. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box.

I am the Applicant for the project
☑I am the neighbor
Other (describe)

2. If you are not the applicant, please indicant the applicant's name:

City of Malibu Public Works Department and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

3. Indicate the nature of your appeal.
a) Are you appealing the ☑ approval or☐the denial of the application or ☐ a condition of approval?
b) Each approval is accompanied by a list of specific conditions. If you are appealing one or more of the conditions of approval, list the condition number and state the grounds for your appeal. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)

4. Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate which of the following reasons forms the basis of your appeal:
☑ The findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings: or
☑ There was a lack of fair or impartial hearing: or
☑ The decision was contrary to law.

You must next provide a specific statement in support of each of the bases for appeal that you have checked above. Appeals that are stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.) See attachment to appeal.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Each coastal development permitting decision made by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission is accompanied by written findings. The written findings set forth the basis for the decision. If you have checked the first box in this section as a ground for your appeal, you must indicate the specific finding(s) you disagree with and give specific reasons why you believe the finding(s) is/are not supported by the evidence or why the decision is not supported by the findings. Appeals stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
See attachment to appeal.

Part III. Appeal Checklist
ALL of the following must be timely filed to perfect an appeal.

1. Completed Appeal Checklist (This form with appellant's signature)

2.Appeal Fee $750
The appeal fee must be submitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the City of Malibu. Cash will not be accepted.

3. Mailing Labels and Radius Maps for Public Notice to Property Owners and Occupants Public Notice of an appeal must conform to the manner in which the original notice was given. The notice radius for appealable CDPs and non-appealable CDPs that do not require a public hearing is 100 feet for property owners and residents. The notice radius for non-appealable CDPs that require a public hearing is 300 feet for property owners and 100 feet for residents.

The mailing labels and radius map must be certified by the preparer (a form is available at the public counter): certification may not be more than six months prior to the date of submittal; the radius map must be provided on an 8%" x 11" paper; the mailing labels must be printed on 82"x 11" paper, 3 columns, 10 rows (e.g. Avery 5160).

Page 3 of 4 ends

Part IV. Signature and Appellant Information
I hereby certify that the appeal submittal contains all of the above items. Iunderstand that if any of the items are missing or otherwise deficient, the appeal is ineffective and the filing fee may be returned. IN ORDER TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, ALL APPEAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THE DEADLINE. NO

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR APPELLANTS WHO ONLY PARTIALLY COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE DEADLINE. IF AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED BY THE DEADLINE, THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL.

Dr. Thomas G. Diamantidis

PRINT APPELLANT'S NAME
(Representative)

APPELLANT'S SIGNATURE
Appellant's mailing address:

Appellant's email address:

OFFICE USE ONLY

TELEPHONE NUMBER
12/22/2027 DATE Kristina kropp
(Representative)
Acion Appealed: Approval of CPP 25-041
Appeal Period: 17/17/2s -1/7/26
DatseApeal Form and equied document submited: 16/26
Appeal Completion Date: 1/6/26
Recelved by: GaRncon
D: AJmin istubbe Assistant (Name, Title)

Page 4 of 4 ends

ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL
CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-78 Project: Temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway ("PCH") public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road.

Permits Challenged: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041.

Appellants: Dr. Thomas G. Diamantidis and a group of property owners and residents of real properties in the immediate vicinity and neighborhood of the proposed Project and, therefore, most impacted thereby. Over 100 signatures in opposition to the Project were submitted to the Planning Commission, with more anticipated.

Reasons for Appeal:

I. Prefatory Statement
The Resolution of the Planning Commission is factually inaccurate. In Recitals 1A and 1B, the Project, as approved, is described as one that was "recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study."
The 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety ("2015 Safety Study") did not recommend a roundabout at Encinal Canyon and PCH. To the contrary, the 2015 Safety Study, which provides a list of over 130 recommended alternative improvements to PCH, recommended that the City consider a roundabout at a location north of Encinal Canyon Road, off of a newly created intersection to be located immediately across PCH and aligned with La Piedra Beach Road [see 2015 Safety Study, Appendix D to Appendix 4, page D.3 (Figure D-2):

CONSIDER AREON

ENCINAL CANYON ROAD

INSTALL A STREETLIGHT

RESTRIPE TO WIDEN SHOULDERS SURROUNDING LA PIEDRA BEACH

AREA BY PERMIT PARKING AND PROVIDE LANES TO

LA PIEDI LAPIEDRAAD

CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF

REALIGNMENTOF ENCINAL WITH PIEDRA BEACH ROAD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

RESTRIPE RIGHT TURN
Contrary to the Planning Commission's approval, the 2015 Safety Study recommended that the City consider installation of a streetlight at the intersection of Encinal Canyon and PCH.

The Planning Commission's approval purporting to be one that was "recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study" is erroneous, as a matter of verifiable fact.

II. The Findings and Conditions are not Supported by the Evidence, and the Decision is not Supported by the Findings.

City LCP Local Implementation Plan ("LIP") Section 13.6.4 requires that any applicant to a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") provide an "adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed development, project site and vicinity sufficient to determine whether the project complies with all relevant policies of the Malibu LCP, including sufficient information concerning land and water areas in the vicinity of the site of the proposed project, (whether or not owned or controlled by the applicant) so that the City will be adequately informed as to present uses and plans, both public and private." Adequate information has not been provided. There are no transportation studies or analyses provided as part of the CDP application that in any way confirm the appropriateness or safety of the proposed roundabout at the Encinal Road/PCH location. On the contrary, evidence was submitted to the City Planning Commission that the Project specifically runs afoul of U.S. Department of Transportation ("USDOT") Federal Highway Administration ("FHA”) guidance and that the reduction of vehicle separation will create less safe conditions on PCH, pursuant to the City's own 2015 Safety Study:
a. The Project Runs Afoul of USDOT FHA Guidance
It is presumed that the 2015 Safety Study did not recommend a roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon/PCH because roundabouts abutting private driveways specifically conflict with written guidance from the USDOT FHA which states:
"Driveways introduce conflicts into the circulatory roadway, including acceleration and deceleration. Traditional driveway designs do not discourage wrong way movements as a splitter island does." [Exhibit 2, Excerpt from USDOT FHA National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Second Edition¹].

The FHA recommends against roundabouts with direct driveway access unless "site constraints make it necessary" and only if certain criteria are met, 1 Full Report accessible: NCHRP Report 672 – Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition
2 including no alternative access, a low proportion of unfamiliar drivers and driveway design with hammerheads/vehicle turn around areas and proper sight distance.

None of these criteria are met here.

To the contrary of this federal guidance, the Encinal Canyon/PCH roundabout is proposed immediately abutting private, single-family lots, improved with existing residences and driveways. "Openings" in the roundabout would allow vehicles to enter two private single-family lots at 32614 and 32636 PCH, directly from the roundabout:

However, neither of these private driveways were designed with USDOT FHA guidance in mind; both driveways are without publicly accessible hammerheads/vehicle turnaround areas or proper sight distance:

Front Gate Entrance
24s
3 Front Gate
2m
As shown above, both driveways maintain gates along PCH that require vehicles, including deliveries, to park on PCH, sometimes in front of the driveway for access.

If this roundabout is installed, delivery vehicles, service vehicles such as garbage trucks and other vehicles entering these private properties by mistake will have to figure out how to exit, including physically reversing, backwards, into the roundabout depending on their size/angle of entry. b. The City's own 2015 PCH Safety Study Provides that Reduction Vehicle Separation will Create Less Safe Conditions
in
In addition to failing with regard to federal safety guidance, the Project's proposal to reduce two lanes on PCH into one is also specifically against the recommendations of its own 2015 Safety Study, Phase I, which provides:
"Narrowing lanes reduces vehicle separation. Current conditions show that drivers are not responding to less safe conditions with safer driving behavior. Reducing vehicle separation would create less safe conditions with no guarantee that vehicle speeds would be lowered." [Exhibit 2, Excerpt from LSA Report (Phase I)2].

On January 2, 2026, Caltrans further revealed that the Project, as proposed, is made up of non-standard design features. No further description was provided a
2 "Starting in 2012, a previous firm, LSA Associates Inc., contracted with SCAG to produce series of reports quantifying and analyzing the PCH corridor for potential safety improvements. These reports provide comprehensive documentation about existing traffic and safety conditions and provided a series of high level and programmatic recommendations for addressing safety issues in the corridor." The 2015 Safety Study refers to these analyses as Phase I. [Final Report, p. 1]. 4 regarding what said non-standard design features were. This information was not shared with or discussed with the Planning Commission in December 2025. No transportation studies or analyses have been provided that in any way confirm the appropriateness or safety of these "non-standard" design features.

The Project will require bicyclists and vehicles, including oversize vehicles, to merge into and share one lane without any physical separation. It will introduce conflicts at the existing driveways which will immediately front the roundabouts, in violation of federal guidelines. None of this is analyzed, studied or presented with any evidence regarding its appropriateness or safety. The CDP application fails to provide all information necessary for purposes of LIP Section 13.6.4.

Notably, this proposed Project, described by one of the Planning Commissioners in December as an "experiment," with its lack of analysis, countless uncertainties, and conflict with written guidelines, is proposed on PCH - an evacuation route arterial. During this ongoing "experiment," the City will be putting the lives of its constituents in danger in the event of an emergency.

LIP Section 13.9.A requires that a project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conform with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

In support of this finding, the Planning Commission Resolution provides that the Project "is consistent with the policies of LUP Chapter 7 (Public Works) by improving public safety and multimodal access to and between visitor serving and recreation areas."
However, this statement is incorrect. There is absolutely no evidence (studies, analyses, etc.) whatsoever before this City Council that the Project will improve "public safety and multimodal access to and between visitor serving and recreation areas.3" Indeed, staff admitted that there was no such evidence. The applicant has not provided any such evidence.

Indeed, the only evidence that has been submitted to the City is that the Project is made up of unspecified "non-standard" design features; introduces the merging of two lanes into one, narrowing vehicle separation and creating less safe conditions pursuant to the City's own Safety Study; requires bicyclists and vehicles to merge into and share one lane without any physical separation; and proposes a roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH which specifically runs afoul of written USDOT FHA guidance.
3 See West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506 (an agency abuses its discretion if its order or decision is not supported by the findings; or the findings are not supported by the evidence). 5 LIP Section 13.C4 requires written findings that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. LIP Section 13.D requires written findings that if a project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conform with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

Contrary to the Planning Commission's boilerplate findings regarding these LIP sections, the Project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. A portion of PCH that is a part of this Project is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. There is absolutely no reason that the roundabouts which are proposed should be proposed at the current locations. The 2015 Safety Study did not recommend a roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH. There is not only a plethora of other locations for roundabouts that are not within an ESHA buffer, but also other, alternative improvements to PCH that can be made to alleviate speeding concerns.

Furthermore, this Project was never reviewed by the Environmental Review Board. Accordingly, the finding required by LIP Section 13.D literally cannot be made with any, let alone substantial, supporting evidence.

LIP Chapter is the City's Public Access Chapter. The purpose of the Public Access Chapter is to achieve the basic state goals of maximizing public access to the coast and public recreational opportunities, as set forth in the California Coastal Act codified in the Public Resources Code ("PRC"). PRC Section 30001.5(c) states that public access both to and along the shoreline shall be maximized, consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.

The Planning Commission resolution provides, simply, that the "project would not inhibit public access opportunities." Provided without any scintilla of evidence or analysis, this statement is incorrect. The Project includes the narrowing of lanes on PCH. It is a widely accepted transportation policy principle that narrowing road lanes lowers vehicle capacity and translates to fewer vehicles per hour. The reduction of lanes will limit the ability of the public to access the beaches on the northern end of Malibu. This must be reviewed, studied and analyzed. This proposal is against the mandates of the Coastal Act to maximize public access to the coast and public recreational opportunities.

LIP Section 6.4 provides that a Coastal Development Permit for a proposed development shall only be granted if the City's decision-making body is able to find that the project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons. In support of 4 Also required by LIP Section 6.4.
6 this finding, the Planning Commission resolution recites a series of Project elements, declaring such to be unimpactful. However, a review of the Project plans shows that the Project's introduction of walls, lights, foundations and other improvements will have a significant adverse scenic impact on Pacific Coast Highway, officially designated as an eligible scenic highway.

III. The Decision was Contrary to Law.

As set forth above, the Project conflicts with the LIP, the Coastal Act and USDOT FHA. Furthermore, the proposed Categorical Exemptions for the Project do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

CEQA and its implementing regulations "embody California's strong public policy of protecting the environment." Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 285. Only rigorous compliance with CEQA procedural requirements can expose the facts about a project and its impacts. Failure constitutes an abuse of discretion. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. County of Placer (2022) 86 Ca.App.5th 63.

Here, City staff proposes that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15301(c) and 15303(d). However, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2, neither of these Categorical Exemptions is applicable.

CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2(b) provides that all exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. One of the basic and vital informational functions required by CEQA is a thorough analysis of whether the impacts of a project, in connection with other related projects, are cumulatively considerable.

See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal App.4th 1209 (emphasis added). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.5 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184; CEQA Guidelines §15355.

Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital under CEQA because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. Indeed, one of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources.

These sources appear insignificant when considered individually but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. Therefore, cumulative effects analysis requires consideration of 5 "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. 7 "reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, if any." Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (emphasis added); Gentry v City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1414.

The CEQA Guidelines mandate the preparation of an EIR where cumulative impacts are cumulatively considerable:

An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. 14 CCR §15064(h)(1).

In this case, there is no evidence, much less substantial evidence, in the record, to support the conclusion that the "cumulative impact" of the Project will not result in any potentially significant impacts. There are no other "reasonably foreseeable probable future projects" provided, listed, or analyzed.

However, the City is not only aware of many reasonably foreseeable probable future projects on PCH, but is also currently processing CDP's for such reasonably foreseeable probable future projects including in CDP No. 25-009 to install 19 new guardrails, 22 new or upgraded curb ramps, 6,956 linear feet of new sidewalks, three new retaining walls, two realigned intersections, 42 new light poles, 15 miles of new or upgraded bike lanes, a new California Highway Patrol pull-out, median reconstruction at various locations, and associated roadway improvements along PCH (also proposed with an exemption).

For purposes of CEQA, the City must evaluate the environmental impacts of all reasonably foreseeable and probable future safety improvement projects to PCH jointly.

CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2(c) further provides that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The "unusual circumstances" exception is established without evidence of an environmental effect upon a showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. Alternatively, the "unusual circumstances" exception is established with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.

As discussed hereinabove, in this case, the Project, as proposed, will increase transportation hazards on PCH due to the inclusion of the private 8 driveways into its roundabout design, a design that specifically conflicts with guidance from the USDOT FHA, and the reduction of lanes from two into one, reducing vehicle separation, thereby creating less safe conditions. Due to its location on PCH, adjacent to private single-family residences and driveways which will be directly impacted thereby, this Project may not utilize a Categorical Exemption.

CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2(d) further provides that a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. As set forth above, the Project will cause a scenic impact to PCH.

Each public agency is required to comply with CEQA and meet its responsibilities. CEQA Guidelines Section 15020. The City has failed to do so here.

IV. There was a Lack of a Fair or Impartial Hearing.

The City failed to provide Notice, as required by law. For example, the posted Notices did not comply with the requirements.

EXHIBIT 1

6.11 ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Roundabouts: An Informational Guid e
Access points near an intersection or along an arterial create additional conflicts within the roadway system that affect operations and safety. Managing access points can improve the overall effectiveness of the system by streamlining the roadway operations and reducing the number of conflicts. Roundabouts can provide a useful tool within an access management program to provide U-turn opportunities at the intersections, thereby allowing for a reduction of full access points along the roadway segment. However, within the vicinity of an individual roundabout intersection, property access must also be carefully evaluated.

Access management at roundabouts follows many of the principles used for access management at conventional intersections. For public and private access points near a roundabout, two scenarios commonly occur:

Access into the roundabout itself or
Access near the roundabout.

6.11.1 ACCESS INTO THE ROUNDABOUT
It is preferable to avoid locating driveways where they must take direct access to a roundabout. Driveways introduce conflicts into the circulatory roadway, including acceleration and deceleration. Traditional driveway designs do not discourage wrong way movements as a splitter island does.

Nonetheless, site constraints sometimes make it necessary to consider providing direct access into a roundabout. Exhibit 6-89 shows examples where one or two residential houses have been provided direct access into a roundabout. These driveways have been designed with traditional concrete driveway aprons to provide a clear visual and tactile indication that these are private driveways not to be confused with public roadways.

For a driveway to be located where it takes direct access to the circulatory roadway of a roundabout, it should satisfy the following criteria:

No alternative access point is reasonable.

Traffic volumes are sufficiently low to make the likelihood of errant vehicle behavior minimal. Driveways carrying the trip generation associated with a very small number of single-family houses are typically acceptable; driveways with higher traffic volumes should be designed as a regular approach with a splitter island. In addition, if a high proportion of unfamiliar drivers are expected at the driveway, the engineer should consider providing more positive guidance.

The driveway design should enable vehicles to exit facing forward with a hammerhead design or other area on-site where vehicles can turn around.

Driveways that only allow backing maneuvers into the roundabout should be discouraged in all but very low-volume environments.

The driveway design should enable proper intersection sight distance from the driveway location and adequate stopping sight distance for vehicles approaching the driveway traveling along the primary roadway.

Chapter 6/Geometric Design Page 6-95
Roundabouts: An Informational Guid e
Exhibit 6-89
Example of Residential
Driveways into Circulatory
Roadway
(a) Santa Barbara, California
(b) Voorheesville, New York

6.11.2 ACCESS NEAR THE ROUNDABOUT
Public and private access points near a roundabout often have restricted operations due to the channelization of the roundabout. Driveways between the crosswalk and entrance line complicate the pedestrian ramp treatments and introduce conflicts in an area critical to operations of the roundabout. Exhibit 6-90 shows examples of driveway challenges of this type. Driveways blocked by the splitter island will be restricted to right-in/right-out operation and are best avoided altogether unless the impact is expected to be minimal and/or no reasonable alternatives are available.

The ability to provide an access point that allows all ingress and egress movements (hereafter referred to as full access) is governed by a number of factors:

The capacity ofthe minor movements at the access point. A standard unsignalized intersection capacity analysis should be performed to assess the operational effectiveness of an access point with full access. Unlike the platooned flow typically downstream of a signalized intersection, traffic passing in front of an access point downstream of a roundabout will be more randomly distributed. As a result, an access point downstream of a roundabout may have less capacity and higher delay than one

Page 6 ends

(a) Driveway between crosswalk and roundabout (Bend, Oregon) (b) Driveway aligned with crosswalk (Sammamish, Washington) (c) Driveway reconfiguration (Clearwater, Florida)
Chapter 6/Geometric Design Page 6-97
Roundabouts: An Informational Guid e
Exhibit 6-90
Example of Driveway
Challenges near Roundabout
Roundabouts: An Informational Guid e
downstream of a traffic signal. Queuing from nearby intersections (the roundabout or others nearby) should be checked to see if the operation of the access point will be affected.

The need to provide left-turn storage on the major street to serve the access point. For all but low-volume driveways it is often desirable to provide separate left-turn storage for access points downstream of a roundabout to minimize the likelihood that a left-turning vehicle will block the major street traffic flow. If quantification is desired, a probability analysis can be used to determine the likelihood of an impeding left-turning vehicle, and a queuing analysis can be used to determine the length of the queue behind the impeding left-turning vehicle. If the number of left-turning vehicles is sufficiently small and/or the distance between the access point and the roundabout is sufficiently large, a left-turn pocket may not be necessary.

The available space between the access point and the roundabout. Exhibit 6-91 presents a figure showing typical dimensions associated with a roundabout and left-turn storage for a downstream minor street. As the figure demonstrates, a minimum distance is required to provide adequate roundabout splitter island design and left-turn pocket channelization. In addition, access is restricted along the entire length of the splitter island and left-turn pocket channelization.

Exhibit 6-91
Typical Dimensions for
Left-Turn Access near
Roundabouts
75 ft (22.9 m) 90 ft (27.4 m) 50 ft (15.2 m).
60 ft
(18.3 m)
min. min.

Important: Adjust to local standards
120 ft
(36.6 m)
diameter
Sight distance needs. A driver at the access point should have proper intersection sight distance and should be visible when approaching or departing the roundabout, as applicable.

6.12 STAGING OF IMPROVEMENTS
When projected traffic volumes indicate that a multilane roundabout is required for future year conditions, engineers should evaluate the duration of time that a single-lane roundabout would operate acceptably before requiring

Page 6 ends

EXHIBIT 2
III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SAFETY STUDY

MALIBU, CALIFORNIA
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The contents of this report reffect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG or DOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

LSA
July 2013

ISA ASSOCIATES, ING
JULY 2013 HL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SAFETY STUDY
MALIAU. CAIIFOKNIA
Bicycle Safety Hazards
Throughout the corridor, conditions on the shoulders present a bicycle safety hazard. Rocks and other debris left on the shoulder can force bicycles into travel lanes to avoid them. Even when debris is cleared, dangers remain for eyclists. Degraded pavement quality poses hazards to bicycles and can be harder to see than debris. The most common type of pavement degrading observed along PCH is asphalt spreading, which results in cracks. These cracks can catch bicycle tires. Even when the cracks are filled with new tar, the patch can have a lip that could kick a bicycle tire to the side. As of Fall 2012, Caltrans maintenance workers began repairing cracks. Monitoring and maintenance of PCH should include all pavement, ineluding the shoulders. In particular, debris removed from the roadway should also be removed from the shoulder.

Strategy 1: Regularly maintain all pavement to provide safe passage.

Driver Behavior
Driver behavior is a global concern along PCH in Malibu and exacerbates almost all other safety concerns. A driver's failure to properly yield ROW to bicycles and pedestrians increases the conflict between travel modes and directly impacts the safery of these two groups. Drivers could overcome the safety concerns at driveways by approaching them with greater caution and safer speeds.

Continuing to travel at a high rate of speed compounds sight distance issues. A vehicle's speed also affects a driver's ability to safely maneuver their vehicle, properly yield ROW to pedestrians and bicycles, and effectively consider the safety of other vehičles.

The most common type of collision along the corridor is rear-end, which is evidence that speeds are often not appropriate tor the situation. The Corridorwide Satety Assessment also indicated that accidents with parked vehicles are prevalent with excessive speeds as contributing factors. Automated speed data collected at five locations along the roadway indicated that vehicles exceeding the speed imit by 10 mph or greater occur throughom tne corrtuor and are a signiticant issue near the Malibu Pier. Addressing the speed ue would improve almost every other salety concern, thereby benefiting vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Methods for controlling vehicle speed that were considered but rejected include lowering the speed limit and narrowing lanes. As stated in California Vehicle Code 22358, changing the speed limit on a State Highway would require an Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS) and cannot be lowered arbitrarily. (An ETS is described in California MUTCD Section 2B.13.) In addition, the existing conditions reveal many vehicles exceeding the currently posted speca mnit. Lane width below 12 ft is a non-standard design feature that Caltrans must approve on a case-by-case basis. Narrowing lanes reduces vehicle separation. Current conditions show that drivers are not responding to less safe conditions with safer driving behavior. Reducing vehicle separation would create less safe conditions with no guarantee that vchicle speeds would be lowered.

One method for controlling vehicle speed that should be further considered includes education. The TCDI diseussed above should include consistent speed signing and warning signs to alert drivers to areas presenting increased hazards. In addition to roadside signage, painted warnings on the roadway could include: "LOWER SPEED AHEAD, "WATCH FOR PEIDS," or "SHARE THEROAD." Techniques commonly used to combat drunk driving could also be used to educate the publie about speeding.

These could include public service announcements, bus banners, billboards, and crashh cars.

PANGO1201-PCH Satety StudysTask 5 Altermaines Analysisi hatt Altenatives Atalysıs deex -471 CHP

Page 1 of 14 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Riddick and Members of the Planning Commission Prepared by: Courtney Brown, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Joseph Smith, AICP, Contract Principal Planner Approved by: Yolanda Bundy, MS, PE, CBO, CFCO, Community Development Director and Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Date prepared: December 4, 2025 Meeting date: December 16, 2025 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 – An application for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, as recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City in partnership with the California Department of Transportation
Location: Citywide along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), from Broad Beach Road to La Piedra Beach Road, within the
appealable coastal zone
Applicants: City of Malibu Public Works Department and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25-041 for a pilot project for temporary improvements within the PCH public right-ofway between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, between Post Mile (PM) 58.4 and

59.9, as recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study conducted by the City of Malibu in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Planning Commission
12-16-25
Item

5.A.

EXHIBIT C

Page 2 of 14 ends

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

Project Overview / Setting
PCH has been subject to safety concerns for decades due to drivers exceeding the allowable speed limits, parking issues, and safe access to popular visitor-serving areas along the coast. Over the past five years, the City has experienced the highest number of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicular collisions compared to similarly sized cities. Compared to California’s other 483 cities ranging in size, the City of Malibu is ranked 91st, despite being one of the smallest cities in the State. On June 22, 2015, the City Council adopted the 2015 PCH Safety Study,1 wherein the City examined the current road conditions, determined accident patterns, assessed traffic conflicts, and developed recommended strategies to improve safety along the PCH corridor.

The City Public Works Department, in partnership with Caltrans, has proposed a pilot project to improve safety, slow vehicular speeds, and reduce crash severity along PCH.

The pilot project proposes the installation of various temporary roadway improvements entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and existing roadway prism (i.e., completely within the disturbed and paved area along PCH) along an approximate 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between Broach Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road. The temporary pilot project is intended to gather community feedback and test the effectiveness of the project to evaluate the feasibility of installing a permanent roundabout at this location or at similar locations within the PCH roadway prism. Figure 1 below displays the project location.

Figure 1 – Project Location
Source: City GIS
1 The final PCH Safety Study is available for review at: https://www.malibucity.org/443/PCH-Safety-Study. Recommended projects are included in Appendix C. Recommended intersection focused project figures are included in Appendix D. Final recommended project prioritizations are included in Appendix H.

Page 3 of 14 ends

The proposed improvements would begin at the intersection of PCH and Broad Beach Road (approximately 0.5 miles east of the El Matador State Beach entrance). Utilizing striping and medians, the number of northbound travel lanes would be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction. Traveling west along PCH and leading up to the proposed roundabout at El Matador Beach Road, raised medians of varying widths (2 to 16 feet) would be constructed in the forfeited travel lanes. The single northbound and southbound lanes would be separated with an island varying in width from 3 to 24 feet, with five-foot-wide bicycle lanes proposed adjacent to each lane. The bike lanes are Class II lanes and striped for one-way bike travel in each direction with striped buffers. A seven-foot parking lane is proposed along the southbound lane. The proposed roundabout is expected to have a raised island width of 49 feet with 18-foot thru-lanes.

Figure 2 below shows the median plan.

At the intersection of Encinal Canyon Road, a second roundabout would be installed with raised medians in width from 6 to 26 feet. North and southbound traffic will be separated with an island, which will vary in width from 8 to 12 feet. The roundabout is expected to have a raised island width of 50 feet with 18-foot-wide thru-lanes. After exiting the Encinal Canyon Road roundabout traveling west, the number of highway lanes will return to their current condition resulting in an increase from two to four, with two northbound and two southbound lanes. Figure 3 shows the roundabout and median plan.

Page 4 of 14 ends

The proposed fixtures would be pole-mounted and installed within the public right-of-way, with the illumination directed to the roadway. The proposed lighting is not subject to the Dark Sky Ordinance as it is considered lighting solely for the use of the public right-of-way (MMC Section 17.41.040(E); however, the lighting specifications indicate the fixtures would be downward directed, utilize 40-watt and 4000 Kelvin LED fixtures, and mounted on a 25-foot pole with four-foot arm. Additionally a condition has been added to ensure the lights will not exceed trespass limits onto adjacent properties, further protecting neighboring sites. Each pole would include a solar panel for system charging during the day. The poles would be constructed on a portable three-foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. Figure 4 provides an example of the proposed lighting included in the application materials:

Page 5 of 14 ends

Figure 4 – Example Roundabout Lighting Design
Source: Fonroche Lighting Plan
To accommodate the roundabouts, additional improvements are proposed, including new crosswalk striping and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), new Quick-Kurb bollards for traffic channelization, and the installation of new roadway signs.

The roadway improvements are temporary and are to be utilized for a minimum of 15 months, and would be eligible for up to a three-month time extension. This period would allow Caltrans and the City’s Public Works Department to perform Safety and Operational Performance Assessments to determine if the roundabouts provide significant safety enhancements to PCH. At the conclusion of the pilot program period and based on the data received, the improvements would either be removed and the PCH travel lanes restored to pre-condition, or the improvements would be retained permanently, subject to an approved permit, including a new or amended CDP. This is reflected in Condition No. 3 in the attached resolution.

The project is proposed along a designated scenic road pursuant to LUP Policy 6.5 and would be visible from scenic areas, such as trails and parkland in the vicinity. However, the medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for

Page 6 of 14 ends

necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches.

The project site is located within the Appeallable Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. The project site does not contain mapped trails according to the LCP Park Lands Map. The development will not be located within any LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as the physical improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an EHSA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer.

The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. A condition of approval have been added to ensure further protection of adjacent ESHA via light trespass being limited to the roadway.

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

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

Page 7 of 14 ends

Malibu City CouncilMarch 18, 2026

Malibu City Council
March 18, 2026